Ever since 9/11, but especially since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, American leftists have been filing lawsuit after lawsuit challenging the war against terrorists, the war against Saddam Hussein, you name it. From the terrorist surveillance program, to extraordinary rendition, to the holding of terrorists in Gitmo, to trying terrorists in military tribunals, to suing the CIA on behalf of terrorists who claimed they were “tortured”, and so on and so on, based on this provision of the Constitution, or that statute in the U.S. Code, or a violation of so-called international law. Many of these were thrown out, but some were won by the leftists; in the egregious Hamdan decision, the Supreme Court said terrorists, unlawful enemy combatants, are protected by the Geneva Conventions, something no person with such a status ever had in history.

With the rash of suits that have been filed over the years, the obvious question one could ask the leftists is, “What do you want to do, have the U.S. fight a war against its enemies in the courts?” Naturally, they never admit that this is what they want. But this is exactly what is happening; “U.S. Civil Liberties Group Questions ‘Legal Basis’ Of Using Drones To Kill” (the complaint is here; I’m not going to quote from it).

So in the immortal words of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), my response to these leftists is, “You lie!!!”

Read More →

UPDATE: It was Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) who introduced the bill, not Rep. Sylvester Reyes (D-TX) as mentioned in the post. Read the rest of Ed Lasky’s piece to see how despicable the “Honorable” Mr. McDermott truly is.

We’ll see how far this goes. Per Byron York, Congressional Democrats tried to slip in a manager’s amendment called the “Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Interrogations Prohibition Act of 2010″ into the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act. The amendment would definitively ban the type of waterboarding performed by the CIA against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two others (that’s it; 3) more than 7 years ago (and hasn’t done any since), along with some other not-so-clearly-defined items that may or may not be considered torture as defined in U.S. law. As explained by Stephen Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn, these other items include prolonged isolation, depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care, exploiting phobias of the individual, hooding of detainees (there are other harsher techniques as well, but those items could, in theory, be considered torture under the law already); but, the problem as Hayes and Joscelyn note is that there is a great ambiguity in the amendment as to when these interrogation techniques cross the line towards being cruel, inhuman, and degrading; maybe that’s the point, although it leaves interrogators more worried about being prosecuted than worried about protecting the U.S.

Two things have occurred since I first saw this.

Read More →

It may be hard to hear the drum of War beating over the hip-humping bleating of Lady Gaga but Britain just got a shot across its territorial bow once again by Argentina asserting control of all shipping between the contested Falklands and the Argentina coast. Argentina President Cristina Kirchner’s declaration of shipping lane control on Tuesday, February 16 constitutes the first steps towards a naval blockade of the Falklands referred to as “Las Malvinas” by Argentina.

Coming just 28 years after the first Falkland War, when an expansionist Argentina invaded the sleepy, sheep farming islands only to have its head royally handed back to it by British forces, Tuesday’s move by President Kirchner is this time not seen as a demand for the islands so much as a grab for the oil beds that are within Falklands territorial waters and said to be potentially greater than the output of the 40 billion barrel North Seas oil fields. The arbitrary declaration demands that all ships wishing to operate within the waters between the Falklands and Argentina may do so only after getting a new Argentinean permit, effectively stopped the next-day delivery and start of the year-long construction of the Ocean Guardian oil rig to the Falklands offshore oil beds.

The Director of the Falkland Islands Company, Roger Spink, tried to make light of the confrontation by saying, “There has been an economic blockade of the Falklands from Argentina for many years. It’s something we’ve come to expect.”

Anticipating the controversy, Cabinet chief, Aníbal Fernández, commented, “Any boat that wants to travel between ports on the Argentine mainland to the Islas Malvinas, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. . . must first ask for permission from the Argentine Government.”

Tensions have been running high between the UK and Argentina because Britain refused to stop its oil explorations in what is its own Falkland territory. Argentinean jets actually trailed the Ocean Guardian oil rig all the way from its Scottish Highlands point of origin to its approach to the Falklands. Last week the ship, Thor Leader, was boarded and detained by Argentinean forces because that nation claimed the ship was “illegally” bringing in pipes for the oil crews already stationed on the Falklands themselves.

Besides the high seas heavy-handedness, Argentina is also putting in a complaint to the UN to stop Britain’s oil drilling. Argentinean Foreign Minister, Jorge Taiana, hinted darkly that his country was planning to take, “all necessary steps” to assert its claim over the islands.

However, if Argentina expects to go the military route, it will be facing British forces stationed on the island along with a destroyer the UK keeps in Falkland waters. Analysts in the UK think that Argentina’s aggressiveness over the Falkland oil fields is jingoistic saber rattling by President Kirchner to distract from her increasingly unpopular and corrupt government at home.

One angle not anticipated by these analysts is that it is Gordon Brown as the post-nationalist Labour Prime Minister now in the UK and not the nationalist Tory Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in charge. Budgetary cuts have reduced British naval forces and its under-equipped troops are stretched thin in Afghanistan. Leftists are always sneering at going to war over territory or natural resources and a real “war for oil” may not be enough to get them to trade bullets with a failing nation-state like Argentina.

The Falklands are half a world away from the UK and represent the shreds of a once great empire that international socialists like Brown are anxious to forget. Meanwhile, Argentina, separated as it is by only 300 miles of ocean, looks with greed and envy on the Falklands. Their move at this time to reassert what they claim is their ownership is far more calculated now than it was nearly three decades ago. Considering that Gordon Brown just gave the go-ahead for the Port and White Cliffs of Dover to be sold outright to the French, what then would be his justification for maintaining control of the Falklands if national pride, territorial integrity and control of natural resources are not enough for the internationalists currently at the helm in the UK with which to defend Britain and her interests?

Our “illustrious” Vice President, Joe Biden (he who is afflicted with both hoof-in-mouth disease and has no functioning brain), said that America’s fight in Iraq wasn’t worth the “horrible price” while attempting to have the Obama administration take full credit for its success. I’m assuming Winston Smith, from within the Ministry of Truth, was feeding Biden these lines. There is no sense rebutting Smith Biden’s crap here since former Vice President Dick Cheney did a nice job of doing so.

No matter how much people want to say Iraq was a distraction from our real fight with Al Qaeda, the reality is, in fact, overthrowing Saddam Hussein had as much to do with fighting Al Qaeda, albeit indirectly, as it does with taking out Osama bin Laden. Politically speaking it was the right thing to do, especially as it relates to national security. Biden’s statement is just one more in a long line of misleading and false statements from Democrats and the leftists about what Iraq was about. Allow me to explain. It’s long but I think well worth your time to read it.

Read More →

A Nation of Fools by Peary Perry

(Sign up for future columns at www.pearyperry.com)

INFORMATION? WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING INFORMATION…..

In colonial days, the British soldiers were called ‘redcoats’ because of the color of their uniforms. The powers that be at the time thought it made sense to have their uniforms the same color as blood so that if somebody got shot the other soldiers wouldn’t get unnerved as easily. Of course, when rifles started coming into more common use the British changed to khaki and eventually to camouflage. The concept of being visible had to be altered to conform to warfare changes. The rule of thumb for most spies has been that if you were caught spying out of uniform, you were subject to immediate execution without any rights whatsoever. Uniforms and weapons have changed over these past years and warfare tactics have changed with them as well. The rules of war have been fairly well established over the years and for the most part understood by those who participate in this industry.

They seem to be understood by everyone except those in Washington, D.C. For one thing our country, our culture is not fighting a conventional war against a conventional enemy. We do not have the benefit of seeing an enemy in matching uniforms with insignia and decorations such as was the rule in the past. We do not have the luxury of facing an enemy fighting with conventional weapons. No, this enemy uses underwear bombs or women as suicide bombers to achieve their goals. Are these our warring enemies or just misguided individuals bent on carrying out a criminal act? I personally believe that any group sworn to destroy our way of life and who will utilize any and every method to achieve their goals has declared war upon this nation. Just because they do not wear what we would call conventional uniforms does not dismiss the fact that they are enemy combatants and need to be treated as such.

The suspect involved in Christmas Day airplane bombing attempt was talking freely and openly about his plans, training and connections until the FBI read him his rights and appointed an attorney to represent him. Then he shut up and has refused to give out any more information. What a waste of intelligence. Since when do foreigners, especially those determined to cause us harm get civil rights in this country? Since when do those soldiers, yes soldiers, of other cultures seeking to destroy us have the right to a United States taxpayer paid for lawyer? Why wasn’t this person turned over to the military authorities and questioned and then scheduled for trial in a military court of law rather than a civil court of law?

Have we lost our minds? Are the inmates running the asylum? I believe they are. When the head of the FBI states he was not even consulted on whether or not this suspect should have a lawyer, what does this say for our nations leaders? No much as I see it.

So now, the administration believes we need to try any and all persons (there could be thousands) who wage war against this nation in civilian courts with civilian legal representation at taxpayer expense. I wonder if Hitler would have done the same for us if he had won the war. Probably not.

No…where we have gone wrong in this nation is to put the interests of very minor groups ahead of those in the majority. We want to be so politically correct that we can’t stand the concept that some poor boy from Nigeria who is inapt at blowing up his boxers might be traumatized by having to endure a trial in a military court designed for terrorist trained warriors. I’m sure his defense will include the fact that he failed to have a cake on his tenth birthday and that his mother might have spanked him as a child. Oh, the shame of it all.

During WWII, if Adolph Hitler knew who you were or had some reason to notice you, you were the source of much adoration and envy among the citizens of Germany. In my mind when a sworn enemy of this country such as Osama bin Laden speaks words of praise for the Christmas Day bomber, then you are not entitled to the right of an American. Those rights belong to those of us whose parents, and grandparents and others fought and died so that we could enjoy the freedom of this country. To give those same rights to someone with such careless abandon as the ones given to this bombing suspect cheapens the entire concept of civil rights.

War is not civil, wake up Washington.

Comments go to pperry@austin.rr.com

Complaints go nowhere..

I ran across this today as I was preparing my son’s history reading for the week.

It is painfully apparent that history, ignored, is a poor teacher. History, as rewritten by democrats and promulgated in the schools and media, is a dangerous teacher.

From MacArthur’s farewell speech to Congress, April 19, 1951.

“I address you with neither rancor nor bitterness in the fading twilight of life, with but one purpose in mind: to serve my country. The issues are global and so interlocked that to consider the problems of one sector, oblivious to those of another, is but to court disaster for the whole. While Asia is commonly referred to as the Gateway to Europe, it is no less true that Europe is the Gateway to Asia, and the broad influence of the one cannot fail to have its impact upon the other. There are those who claim our strength is inadequate to protect on both fronts, that we cannot divide our effort. I can think of no greater expression of defeatism. If a potential enemy can divide his strength on two fronts, it is for us to counter his effort.  [Al Queda is active on all fronts around the globe. The current administration in America not only won't counter Al Queda's efforts, they are knowingly making it easier for terrorists.] The Communist threat is a global one. Its successful advance in one sector threatens the destruction of every other sector. You cannot appease or otherwise surrender to communism [Islamic terrorism] in Asia [America] without simultaneously undermining our efforts to halt its advance in Europe [around the world].

I called for reinforcements but was informed that reinforcements were not available. [General McChrystal fared as well with the Obama regime.] I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy build-up bases north of the Yalu, if not permitted to utilize the friendly Chinese force of some 600,000 men on Formosa, if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without, and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory.” [Obamreceived a similar report from McChrystal, and deliberately ignored it.]

“But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

War’s very object is victory, no prolonged indecision. [Obama despises victory and uses indecision to thwart it at every turn.]

In war there is no substitute for victory.”

“There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. [Or Islamic terrorists or Communists world-wide.] They are blind to history’s clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace. Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only other alternative.

“Why,” my soldiers ask of me, “surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?” I could not answer.”

Thanks to Obama and his administration, which continues NOT to recognize terrorists acts against the American people as done by enemy combatants, but only as civilian criminals.

Thus allowing this al-Qaeda trained fanatic jihadist radical Muslim extremist caught red handed by a Dutch tourist to plead innocent, because Holder and Obama insisted on giving a non-American citizen his Miranda rights so this enemy combatant can make a deal for a light sentence as a civil criminal.

With continued attacks, seemingly at will by fanatical jihad radical extremists Islamist Muslims against innocent American and other world citizens, what is taking Americas Commander in Chief, so long in asking the Senate and House, which his party controls, for a Declaration of War.

Enemy combatants or al-Qaeda trained fanatic jihadist radical Muslim extremists are not legitimate civil criminals, they are enemy combatants.

Obama’s catastrophic failure to acknowledge that America and the world is at war, remains Obama’s “responsibility to find out why and to correct that failure” by first arresting these enemy combatants, not giving them their nonexistent Miranda rights.

It’s attorney general Erick Holder, supported by Obama and the democrats that are attempting to legitimize them as civil criminals by giving these enemy combatants Miranda rights and stopping all interrogation of them by lawyers paid for out of public funds which now permits such plea bargaining by our enemy combatants.

His picking and choosing suspected individuals for isolated alleged acts of man-made disasters by these terrorists on his watch or others, is purely for his partisan political civil show trials.

As Commander in Chief, instead of playing golf for four days, should have immediately informed the American people and the world that all attempted acts of terrorism, henceforth will be considered as an attempted and continuing act of war by enemy combatants who all will be immediately turned over to the United States Military Police, for detention, interrogations, imprisonment and trials under USA laws for Military tribunals and will henceforth keep all enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo bay as POWS until all hostilities cease.

When you have in excess of 500,000 thousand people on a terrorists watch list, as members or sympathizers to an organization that has declared war on America and the world, you think our government would get it.

Obama’s catastrophic failure to acknowledge that America and the world is at war with radical Muslim jihad Islam-ism, by NOT asking the Senate and House for a Declaration of War, now is his failure alone.

Unfortunately his predecessor George Walker Bush failed by not asking the House and Senate for such a Declaration, perhaps because his party did not control either the Senate or House as Obama’s party now does?

With continued attacks, seemingly at will, by jihad radical Islamist or Muslims extremists’ fanatics, against innocent American and other world citizens, what is taking Americans Commander in Chief, President Barrack Hussein Obama, so long in asking the Senate and House, which his party controls, for a Declaration of War.

Is this the cover he along with his administration is hiding behind, so they can continue their playing of partisan politics, of picking and choosing which terrorists will be prosecuted under a civil criminal show trial for the world to see?

Instead of all his hype rhetoric, of hope and change, he failed to honestly and effectively deal by referring to this latest terrorists act as done by a criminal suspect who allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device on his body.

Barack Hussein Obama must no longer hesitate and should immediately ask the Senate and House, which are both under his party’s control for a Declaration of War against terrorism.

Then advise the American people and the world that any and all attempted criminal acts of terrorism by jihad radical Islam-ism or Muslims extremists’ fanatics henceforth will be considered by the United States as an attempted and continuing act of war by enemy combatants who all will be immediately turned over to the United States Military Police, under the Geneva Convention, for detention, interrogation, imprisonment and trials under USA laws for Military tribunals.

Until he and his administration follows through by asking for a Declaration of War against terrorism, his is playing with the security of the American people by his continued picking and choosing of these enemy combatants for his partisan politics for show trials and giving these enemy combatants Miranda rights and stopping all interrogation of them by lawyers paid for out of public funds.

I published the Iraq X-file USA vs USA which is a playlist of 5 videos on YouTube in 2007 but I have not posted them in Red State yet so here they are below.

I was reminded about Saudi duplicity and backstabbing of the US and allies the other day when General David Patraeus interviewed recently in the Washington Post told us that Mullah Omar, the head of the enemy Taliban may be in Saudi Arabia.

PATRAEUS - “I gather that Karzai’s brother met with either Mullah [Mohammed] Omar or his close aides in Saudi Arabia.”

That the head of the enemy Taliban might be thought to be in Saudi Arabia should come as no surprise.

Saudi Arabia appears to be the enemy Head Quarters in the war on terror.

• Bin Laden, head of Al Qaeda, is a Saudi citizen, as were most of the 9/11 terrorists. Bin Laden may even be holed up in Saudi Arabia right now. Maybe even Mecca where some think he is a holy man. OK that is speculation but what is obvious, to me at least, is that Bin Laden is a secret agent of the Saudi kingdom.
• The Saudi kingdom doesn’t prosecute financial donors to Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
• Saudi-controlled satellite stations broadcast pro-terror TV stations and clerics

Basically the Saudi kingdom is fighting an undeclared war against us.

Our real enemy, in “the war on terror”, call it what you will, ladies and gentlemen, is the Saudi kingdom allied no doubt to similar kingdoms and dictatorships who are opposed to the very notion of democracy and are fighting to destroy democracy everywhere in the world, or at least weaken global democracy enough so that they can continue keeping a grip on their own power by suppressing the democracy of the people they rule over.

Who is supporting negotiations with the enemy in the enemy’s stronghold, the Saudi kingdom, from a position of weakness, with the apparent inability of the president of the USA to confront the enemy Saudi King?

Why with thousands dead in 9/11 and a mountain of evidence implicating the Saudi Kingdom, do US Presidents in denial still choose to hold hands and bow to the Saudi King who not only let 9/11 happen but whose kingdom secretly organises terrorism against the US and allies?

Why does the one global super-power go weak at the knees at the sight of Saudi royalty which is backstabbing it?

Why is the super power suddenly a super coward?

It is a political mystery highlighted by the Iraq X-file.

1. Iraq X-File: USA vs USA (1) Support satellite terror TV NOT!

2. Iraq X-File: USA vs USA. (2) Arm the enemy. NOT!

3. Americans stabbed in the back by the Saudi Kingdom

4. America’s ‘allies’ Saudi & Pakistan: ‘enemies’ more like!

5. Satellite terror TV incites Jordanians to terrorism in Iraq.