VetVoice - Front Page

Rep. John Murtha dead at 77

Richard Allen Smith — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:15:38 GMT

Today, the Veteran community and Americans across the country lost a valued public servant. Congressman John Murtha passed away after experiencing complications that resulted from gallbladder surgery. Murtha served in the United States Marine Corps as an enlisted man and later a commissioned officer. During his service in Vietnam, he was awarded the Bronze Star for Valor and two Purple Hearts. He would later become the first Vietnam War Veteran elected to Congress.

Rest in peace, John Murtha.

Shelby Holding Up Appointees for Defense Pork

Richard Allen Smith — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:25:40 GMT

It seems that whenever one of my esteemed Senators makes the news, it isn't good. For example, last week Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) particularly made a fool of himself during the Armed Services Committee Hearing on DADT by insinuating that Admiral Mullen would be playing politics. Of course, that earned him a strong rebuke from the Admiral.

Also getting his name in the papers this week is the Senior Senator from Yellowhammer State, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). Senator Shelby is throwing himself a fit over a couple of pork projects that haven't been approved for our state:

Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) announced that he would block administration nominees from Senate votes in an attempt to secure funding for two defense-related projects for his state. The use of the holding tool is often wielded anonymously. But Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) complained publicly about Shelby's effort to win tens of millions of dollars in federal money by delaying dozens of nominees from taking up government positions, including some in national security agencies.
[...]
Shelby is seeking funds for the KC-135 Air Force tanker fleet, a project that could generate thousands of jobs in Alabama. He is also demanding that the administration restore funding cut from the budget for the FBI's Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center, a facility to test defenses against the improvised bombs used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Shelby placed the hold because of "unaddressed national security concerns," according to a statement released by his office. He "has made the administration aware of these concerns and is willing to discuss them at any time." The statement said Shelby was holding up "several" nominees, but the White House and Reid's office placed the number at more than 70.

One troubling aspect of this report is that Senator Shelby may be holding up national security related nominees. The quote above states that he has done so, and a similar statement was made by the White House blog.

As Senator Shelby's constituent, I have called his offices in Washington as well as in my fare city to find out if this is so. As of yet, I have not received a response.

The other troubling point in this story is Shelby's attempt to secure funds for the mentioned tanker fleet. The Senator is attempting to have funds appropriated to build a facility in Mobile for the manufacture of the new Air Force tanker, a project that has suffered from corruption and a lack of transparency as I have criticized in the past. If the facility were built in Mobile, French manufacturer Airbus would be able to obtain the contract over the American company Boeing. While such a project would bring a few jobs to our state, these would be low-level assembly line jobs with more technical and specialized work being done at Airbus facilities in Europe.

So, to simplify the situation, here is what's going on: Senator Richard Shelby is obstructing all Administration nominations (including any to DoD, DHS, VA, and State) so that a French company that would ship American jobs overseas can receive a contract for a U.S. Air Force project.

Stay class, Senator Shelby.

One Confirmed Retroactive Stop-loss Payment

Richard Allen Smith — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:59:57 GMT

Forgot to post this, but last week I received my payment from DFAS compensating me for the 12 months I spent stop-lossed in 2007/2008. That worked out to a pretty good chunk of change, so it's hard to complain. But really, I filed my application almost five months ago, and I just now get a check? Ridiculous. If I e-filed my taxes this week, I'd have my return by next Friday. DFAS has a much smaller pool to work with, and knows exactly who has been stop-lossed. If the IRS can do something right, there is no reason DFAS shouldn't be able to do it just as well.

Emergency Contraception to be Available at all U.S. Bases

Richard Allen Smith — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:38:42 GMT

The Pentagon has ordered that emergency contraception drugs be made available at all U.S. military installations worldwide:

The decision follows a recommendation by an independent panel of doctors and pharmacists in November, said Defense Department spokeswoman Cynthia Smith. The panel determined that emergency contraception should be added to the military's list of medications that must be stocked at each military facility.
[...]
The drug, which contains a high dose of birth control pills, can be used to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex by blocking ovulation or fertilization. Critics of the contraceptive say it is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

There will be the inevitable chorus of feigned outrage from the right on this. However, here are some facts of life: a) troops have sex; b) sometimes, condoms don't work; and the most unfortunate of reasons c) sexual assault happens in the military.

Now, women who serve in the American uniform across the world will have the same resources for reproductive health as any other American woman. Kudos, DoD.

Afghanistan no Longer Deteriorating

Richard Allen Smith — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:00:00 GMT

So says General McCrystal:

ISTANBUL -- The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, whose gloomy assessment of the war last summer prompted the White House to boost troop levels, said Thursday that conditions are no longer deteriorating and predicted further improvements this year.
"I am not prepared to say that we have turned the corner," Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal told a group of U.S. reporters during a NATO conference here. "I'm not prepared to say we are winning. I am prepared to say we are very much engaged, and I'm confident we're going to see serious progress this year."

So going on nine years into the conflict, we've gone from several years of continual decline to a stalemate. That's progress, I guess.

Open Thread

Richard Allen Smith — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:07:08 GMT

VA photo by Robert Turtil. Courtesy U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

VA Secretary Shinseki, Hundreds of Volunteers Help Homeless Veterans at DC VA Medical Center Homeless Stand Down.

About those 1,150 Retired Generals Opposed to DADT Repeal

Richard Allen Smith — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:24:13 GMT

Since the President's State of the Union speech and the testimony of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the SECDEF this week, I have seen several opponents of the repeal (here's one) invoke a petition sent to President Obama last year from 1,150 retired flag officers opposed to a repeal of the policy.

I think it's important to point out that the credibility of that petition has already been essentially destroyed by my predecessor:

decided I'd do some critical analysis of the list of those who'd signed the letter. I wanted to know who these military leaders were. But because the list is so huge, I knew I couldn't quickly compile information on each officer. So I decided to look at the first--and most senior--group of signers: The 47 four-star generals and admirals on the list.
What I found wasn't surprising at all. If the 47 senior officers on the list are representative of the other thousand, then the letter has been signed by exactly what I suspected: A large group of distinguished, older, retired military officers who entered the service between World War Two and Vietnam--and who largely left the service prior to the 21st century and the modern military era.
As it turns out, no four-star officer on the list entered the military after 1969--over three decades before I led my own infantry platoon into combat in Afghanistan as a young lieutenant. In fact, all but four of the officers were in the service before Vietnam even started. Eight of the 47 joined the military during World War Two--at the same time as my grandparents. And the remaining 35 joined between the end of WWII and the beginning of Vietnam--in an era not known for its receptiveness to homosexuality, especially in the military.
But, more important than the fact that these officers entered the service over 40 years ago--in the middle of the 20th century--is the reality that the vast majority never served with troops of the modern era. Fully two-thirds of the four-stars on the list retired before the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law was even enacted in 1993. 41 of the 47 on the list never wore a uniform during this century, and only four of the 47 retired four-star generals--Magnus included--were still in the service on 9/11.
The fact is, while they've certainly earned the right to express their opinions, this group of older, retired officers is largely out of touch with current cultural norms and what constitutes "mainstream" in 2009--and they certainly don't speak for those who've served overseas in the years since 9/11. While many are combat heroes themselves, their experiences range from Korea to Desert Storm. But not one of the 47 four-stars on that list has ever served in Iraq or Afghanistan with today's military, much less had to depend on one of the 58 gay Arabic translators fired in 2007 alone. These officers were brought up in a draft military at a time when open homosexuality was typically viewed as deviant--unlike today, when 81 percent of Americans think gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

Another important point is that we ultimately learned that one of the General Officers on the list, General (Ret.) Louis C. Menetrey, was actually deceased at the time he "signed" the petition, and had been incapacitated with Alzheimer's since 2003. His widow used a power of attorney to attach his name to the petition.

Keep all this in mind whenever you hear the talking point that "1,150 flag officers oppose a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Vets Launch $2m TV Ad Campaign on Energy and Terror

Richard Allen Smith — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:52:28 GMT

VoteVets.org, the largest progressive group of Veterans in America is launching a $2 million ad campaign in seven states, as well as the nation's capital pushing for a comprehensive energy bill that will cut our dependence on oil, and calling out those who are putting contributions from oil interests above America's interest.

This version of the ad is targeted at all nationally elected officials and will run in Washington, DC:

This version of the ad will run in Kentucky, with alternate versions running in several other states:

You can see all eight ads here.

The campaign was launched days after the oil industry revealed that it spent $154 million lobbying Congress in 2009-much of it in opposition to comprehensive energy legislation.

"The fight to get off Middle East oil is a matter of life and death for those of us who serve this country," said Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org. "Every day Congress delays action is another day they are siding with oil companies and against our veterans," continued Soltz.

The ads use the so-called "Christmas Bomber," Umar Abdulmutallab, as a reminder that terrorists continue to target America, and that every day we continue our dependence on Middle East Oil, we continue to send money to nations with ties to terror. Yet many in Congress seem more interested in taking oil money from companies that do business in countries with ties to terror than they are in support a bipartisan effort to cut our dependence on oil and reduce pollution.

The state-based ads, which feature local veterans, are running in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, South Dakota and Wyoming. Most of these ads call out specific Members of Congress for taking thousands of dollars from oil companies, while opposing comprehensive energy legislation.

The Senators targeted in the ads have taken nearly a half million dollars from oil companies who do business in these countries - oil companies that oppose moving America to a clean energy economy that could get the United States on the track to true energy independence.

The Hurt Locker Doesn't Get This Vet's Vote

Kate Hoit — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:44:11 GMT

Military personnel everywhere should be celebrating: the war flick The Hurt Locker has been nominated for nine Oscar's. American's were so curious about the war and the soldiers who fight in it they bought 10 dollar movie tickets. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences thinks it's worthy; finally soldiers of the Iraq war have been embraced. Problem is, it's Hollywood's version of the Iraq war and of the soldiers who fight it. And their version is inaccurate.

The year is 2004, the Baghdad streets are clean, almost too clean, and dust lingers in the air, soldiers appear...in the wrong uniform. Soldiers deployed to Iraq in 2004, the year The Hurt Locker was suppose to take place, were not wearing the Army Combat Uniform. I should know I was there. We still wore the Desert Camouflage Uniform. How hard would it have been to get this correct? Apparently so hard that no one working on the movie could be bothered to consult anyone with knowledge on military dress, or visit the local surplus store. Congratulations, what seemed like a would-be decent military movie to those who had actually served was now automatically ruined within the first few minutes. And for future reference, military personnel do not roll their sleeves up in a combat zone.

No, the EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) team would not roll out into the middle of Iraq practically by themselves. The Hurt Locker made it seem like the EOD team were taking on the streets of Baghdad; just them against a world of improvised explosive devices. However, this is when I realized the script writers were lazy. This movie is a full-throttle adrenaline rush that is comprised of ditching common sense and the realities of war. The writers did not attempt to formulate a story based on the actual job of an EOD soldier. Instead, they created a war junky, sniper, commando guy who relied on no one (and no radios?) and stressed out everyone around him, including those watching the movie.

Sergeant First Class William James, played by Jeremy Renner, befriends a young Iraqi boy, Beckham, who sold him poorly pirated movies. I will admit Hollywood got two things right: Iraqis typically sold horribly pirated movies but soldiers usually still continued to buy them. And with this friendship, The Hurt Locker, tapped into the more human side of war; the unique bond between some soldiers and Iraqis. However, this relationship set the stage for one of the best "this is total crap" scenes in the movie.

James forces a merchant, for whom Beckham works at Camp Victory, to drive him to Beckham's house (James believes Beckham has been killed and gutted to fit an unexploded bomb inside of his body). James makes his way to Beckham's house and demands to know what exactly happened to Beckham. Well, he never finds out because he is kicked out. James ride has left him and he has no other chose but to run back to Camp Victory. Throwing up the hood of the sweatshirt, he runs through the streets of Baghdad. While I watched that scene I automatically thought, there isn't a soldier in the world who would leave their base and run through Baghdad unless they were trying to commit suicide. I laughed out loud in the theater, like, could anyone actually believe this. When James finally reaches Camp Victory, a sympathetic soldier on guard duty lets him on base. So, let me get this straight. We have an American soldier running through Iraq in a hooded sweatshirt, trying to find out what happened to a kid who sold bootleg movies, and a sweet soldier who just let's James waltz on base? Bravo Hollywood; that was pure magical bullshit.

When James returns from Iraq and attempts to adjust to normal civilian life, The Hurt Locker, got it right: home isn't so sweet and readjusting is tough. James struggled to raise his children with his wife. Hell, he had trouble deciding what cereal to buy at the grocery store. James realized there was only "one thing" that he loved and that was military life. So, he went back to Iraq. This happens more then some would believe.

Aside from incorrect uniforms and how they were worn, what patches an EOD soldier would have on their uniform, who would accompany EOD on a mission, proper weapons, and showing NCOs (Noncommissioned Officers) drinking alcohol in a war zone, this movie resonated with many. My civilian friends "loved it", called it "awesome", and even told me I have "large balls" for going over there (to which I responded with, "uhh thanks.")

The Hurt Locker, is in many ways inaccurate. And the inaccuracies have alienated most service members from enjoying this movie. However, it is better then a lot of the recent war movies that have been released. Do I even have to mention Stop-Loss? Awful. James played a Hollywood soldier that was fearless, reckless, and is now the face of the 21st century G.I. Joe. And who doesn't love G.I. Joe, right?

John Kerry: Republicans Attack Military Leadership to Defend Ban on Gays

Senator John Kerry — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:14:51 GMT

"Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates are both political appointees. They're going to be biased. They're going to say what the administration wants them to say." -- U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, Jr.

Stunning. That was my reaction when I listened to a freshman Republican Congressman rebut the principled position of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, that the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needed to end and that gay members of the Armed Services should be able to serve their country without fear that just being who they are would end their service.

It was especially alarming to hear the judgment of Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates dismissed so easily as 'biased.'

Anyone who knows Admiral Mullen or Bob Gates knows damn well that neither of them say what any Administration just wants them to say.
This is, after all, Secretary Bob Gates - a lifelong Republican who was appointed to positions of high trust and leadership by President Ronald Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President George W Bush. This is a Defense Secretary who planned to leave government and had to be talked into continuing to serve in a Democratic Administration. He is doing his duty today out of patriotism, not political ambition or partisanship.

And this is, after all, the same Admiral Mullen who was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by President George W Bush. A four star Admiral who has spent 42 years wearing the uniform of his country. He's tough. He's independent. He speaks his mind, and he speaks the truth. Indeed, at Tuesday's hearing, when Republicans members of the Senate Armed Services Committee accused him of "undue command influence" and of obeying "directives" from President Obama, Admiral Mullen responded in just the way you would expect a man of his caliber. "This is not about command influence," he said. "This is about leadership, and I take that very seriously."

But let's test what Congressman Hunter said. Does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just automatically sing from the same playbook as the Administration? Ironically, the last time a Democratic President tried to lift the ban on gays on the military, the Chairman of the JCS, who happened to be a Republican appointed by his Republican predecessor, broke with the President and opposed gays serving openly. His name was General Colin Powell. The Republicans back then didn't think to question the impartiality of that political appointee.

Of course, today, General Powell has changed his position and he stands with Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates.

This is not 1993. We have come a long way as a country, and we have come a long way as a military to arrive at this moment when I believe our men and women in uniform agree with the Commander in Chief and with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military is, as Admiral Mullen put it, "the right thing to do."

This has been a rocky journey. In 1993, I testified in front of Senator Strom Thurmond's Armed Services Committee in favor of lifting the ban I said then and I believe even more fervently now that, "when it comes to defending our country, we cannot afford to waste the bravery and service of a single American. This is a time to find public servants, not public scapegoats."

And it hasn't always been Democrats making the case.

Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, a conservative Republican icon, once argued: "You don't have to be straight in the military, you just have to be able to shoot straight." Not long after he retired from the Senate in 1987, he tried to warn his fellow Republicans that "eventually the ban will be lifted" and the sooner the better. Rep. Duncan Hunter may claim that he never served with anyone in the military who was openly gay, but he'd do well to read what Senator Goldwater once rightly observed, "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone."

Anyone who believes otherwise should again study Admiral Mullen's testimony about a policy which "forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend this country."

Senator John McCain, who replaced Barry Goldwater in the Senate, certainly understood the opposition to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In 2006, as he was preparing for his successful campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, McCain told an audience at Iowa State University that "the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."

Today, not just John McCain, but everyone in positions of public responsibility should understand that the moment is now - the leadership of our military are joining the Commander in Chief in saying, the time for change has come.

President Obama, in his State of the Union address last week, argued that repealing the ban on gays in the military reaffirms the American ideals of equality, unity and diversity, the very source of our strength at home and abroad, the very values Americans in uniform defend around the globe.

And this change is overdue. This policy has costs beyond the immorality of the ban. More than 13,500 people have been forced to leave the military under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And according to a Government Accountability Office report, the cost of recruiting and training their replacements had cost taxpayers $190.5 million through 2003. We have no estimates on how much more it has cost us in the six years since.

But the most eloquent and most convincing testimony against the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" comes, as such testimony usually does, from those who have paid the highest price for the policy's failings. And the most compelling I have ever read is on a tombstone in Congressional Cemetery, not far from the Capitol. It says, "When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one."

It doesn't have to be this way any longer. No more grave markers need to be etched with such painful words. Remember now the words of President Truman when - in the face of enormous outcry and opposition - he desegregated the military: ""there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin." Let's complete President Truman's mission, and wipe away the last stain of legal discrimination in the Armed Services of our nation.

Colin Powell, Crafter of DADT, Now Against it

Richard Allen Smith — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:10:15 GMT

When President Clinton tried to eliminate the ban on gay servicemembers in the military, then Joint Chiefs Chair General Colin Powell opposed the idea, stating that it would threaten good order and discipline. Instead, he proposed the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy which has led to an unnecessary drain on personnel and treasure.

Today, General (Ret) Powell, who served as Secretary of State under George W. Bush, echoed the sentiments of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, also a Bush appointee, and current Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral Mike Mullen, in stating that the policy has worn out its welcome:

"In the almost 17 years since the 'don't ask, don't tell' legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed," General Powell said in a statement issued by his office. He added: "I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen."

With support dwindling for the policy, with anyone who has credibility on the subject calling for its demise, with a lack of any credible evidence as to its effectiveness and overwhelming evidence pointing to its detrimental effects on our readiness and security, there is absolutely no reason for its continued enforcement or existence.

Look Who's Talking

Richard Allen Smith — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:13:09 GMT

Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab:

Washington (CNN) -- Senior Obama administration officials revealed late Tuesday they've secretly gained the cooperation of family members of Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab to help get the Christmas Day airline bomb suspect talking.
The cooperation effort has led to actionable intelligence that could help prevent terror attempts on U.S. soil, the senior officials said.
[...]
The senior administration officials disclosed that on January 1, just days after the attempted terror attack, two FBI agents secretly flew to Lagos, Nigeria, to meet with officials of the CIA and the State Department. They began an extensive investigation and tried to work with AbdulMutallab's family in hopes of gaining his cooperation.
The U.S. officials later traveled to Nigeria's capital city, Abuja, and eventually gained the trust of two unidentified relatives of the suspect.
On January 17, the FBI agents secretly flew back to the U.S. with the two relatives in order to work with the suspect.
One senior Obama administration official said the family members privately conveyed to the suspect they "had complete trust in the U.S. system" and they believed he "would be treated fairly" by the Obama administration.

Silly me, I thought only torture techniques like water boarding, slamming into walls, sleep deprivation for 180 hours, placement in insect boxes or food deprivation above 1,000 calories a day could get a suspected al Queda terrorist to give reliable intelligence.

Who would have thought that building trust with a person, rather than smacking them around Jack Bauer style, would get them to talk?

I will forever respect Admiral Mike Mullen.

Richard Allen Smith — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:35:26 GMT

When Admiral Mike Mullen reentered Room G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building this afternoon, he was no doubt exhausted from number crunching and being berated over issues outside his purview before the Senate Armed Services Committee most of the morning. He could have assumed any number of tactics for the controversial hearing that would follow. When questioned about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" he could have deferred to the civilian Pentagon leadership who are concerned with such policies. He could have noted that he serves at the pleasure at the Commander-in-Chief and would accomplish any mission given to him by the President. He could have said that military commanders will follow whatever statutory guidance is given to him by the Congress. He could have stated that more study is needed on the ramifications of the repeal.

But that's not what Admiral Mike Mullen did, because Mike Mullen did not put on his uniform this morning to be indecisive.

Admiral Mike Mullen put on his uniform, affixed his rank, awards and accouterments, and walked into that hearing room this morning for the same reason he has worn the uniform nearly every day since he first entered military service as a junior officer in the United States Navy in 1968.

Admiral Mullen wears his uniform, because he is a leader, and that's what Admiral Mullen decided to be in that hearing today.

Admiral Mike Mullen had to know that those who, during debates on war policy, exalted the opinion of military commanders as gospel not to be challenged, would suddenly find it their charge to tear down the highest ranking military officer in our armed forces. Likewise, he must have known that there would be a faction within the ranks that would not support such a decision.

But Admiral Mullen also had to know a couple of other things.

First, that the United States is defended by the most professional and most disciplined men and women in the world, and that a force of such character is what allows the military to function everyday with little incident, regardless of the prejudices of those within.

Second, Admiral Mike Mullen knows that servicemembers will follow a commander who is willing to lead. Each day, there are troops in our force who have internal disagreements with the decisions of their superiors. Those same individuals, are willing to follow leaders who exude confidence and candor, in a way they would not follow someone who they might agree with, yet displays shaky determination. Admiral Mullen had to know that given a proper leader, a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine will follow to the gates of Hell on nothing more than that very commanders leadership.

In all likelihood, Admiral Mike Mullen didn't have a choice when he took his seat before the committee this morning. After 41 years of military service, Mike Mullen doesn't chose to be a leader. Mike Mullen is a leader. Consequently, Mike Mullen did the only thing he knows how to do. Mike Mullen led. There is no doubt, that those under his command will follow him. The only question is whether the politicians who oppose him-- who showed nothing but weakness and a lack of faith in the professionalism of the men and women who ensure their peaceful sleep each night, possess the intestinal fortitude to follow.

Mirandization

Richard Allen Smith — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:00:00 GMT

As I write this, Secretary Gates is getting beat up by members of the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding the mirandization of Abdulmutallab and his trial in civilian courts. I'm not sure why, as this is a budget hearing for DoD, and this case is clearly in the realm of the Department of Justice. But Gates is getting beat up over it anyway. Senators are implying that more information could be gathered had Abdulmutallab not been read his rights.

One problem: There is no requirement to mirandize a suspect if there is knowledge of a pending crime, and Abdulmutallab was not mirandized until after he stopped giving information:

"It was a (law enforcement) community-wide conference, and they discussed a number of things," one source said on condition of anonymity. "That's when decisions were made on which course was going to proceed, to Mirandize him or otherwise."
The source said that Abdulmutallab was not read his rights until he made it clear that he was not going to say anything else.
[...]
FBI agents questioned him at the hospital for just under an hour. They did not give him the Miranda warning - which advises suspects that anything they say can be used against them at trial - citing an exemption that allows them first to seek crucial information on any pending crime.
During that questioning, one source said, Abdulmutallab suggested that other terror attempts were in the works. "He was making comments like, 'Others were following me.' And that is a circumstance where you've got a potential disaster, that there are others out there and you don't have to Mirandize him right away."
[...]
When Abdulmutallab awakened, a second team of FBI agents was sent in. Authorities believed he might be willing to say even more to the second set of agents.
"We had to see if he was still willing to talk," another source said. "And it was pretty quickly apparent to them that he wasn't. He had had a change of mind. It was only after establishing that with some confidence that they decided to go ahead and Mirandize him."
But by that time, the second source said, "we had already talked to him for almost an hour and he provided a lot of information."

So what did we lose by mirandizing Abdulmutallab? Absolutely nothing. STFU critics.

Open Thread

Richard Allen Smith — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:00:00 GMT

Gen. (Ret.) John P. Jumper, former Air Force Chief of Staff, addresses the audience during the MQ-9 Reaper exhibit opening at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force on Jan. 25, 2010. (U.S. Air Force photo)

DADT: Approval Ends Today

Richard Allen Smith — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:53:29 GMT

For 17 years, our military has practiced an indefensible policy known as "Don't ask, Don't tell", which prohibits gay Americans from serving in our Armed Forces with integrity. In those 17 years, 14,000 qualified men and women who have worn the uniform of our nation have been removed from service for no reason other than their sexual orientation. In the year since the current Commander-in-Chief assumed that office, 644 such Americans have been discharged. Total cost of the discharge of these 14,000 servicemembers has cost the American tax-payer between $140 million and $535 million.

A Williams Institute study has found that the policy has resulted in a lack of retention of 4,000 servicemembers each year since the policy was implemented. The nature of the policy fosters distrust and a lack of integrity amongst comrades. It hinders unit cohesion and combat readiness by removing qualified members of a team from service in the middle of the training and/or deployment cycle. It robs the American Armed Forces of individuals qualified to operate in mission critical occupational specialties, again, for no other reason than their sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, American servicemembers, who have been told allowing gays to serve openly alongside them would harm their morale, have served alongside CIA, DIA, FBI, USAID, and other federal agencies which have no such ban on employment within thier organizations. Those same servicemembers serve alongside the militaries of other nations in the Combined/Joint combat environment who allow homosexual military service with no threat to good order and discipline. Thirty-one other nations allow open homosexual service in their militaries. Would opponents of a repeal of DADT have us believe as Americans, or tell American servicemembers to their faces, that they believe their professionalism to be inferior to that of the militaries of nations like Estonia, Slovenia, and Uruguay?

For 17 years, this failed policy has existed as statutory discrimination and harmed the cohesion and readiness of the units and organizations charged with the protection of our lives and way of life. For 17 years, this policy has gone unchallenged by members of Congress.

If silence is approval, approval ends today.

Iraq War Veteran and VoteVets.org Chair Jon Soltz is attending the hearing today. You can follow his live tweets on the proceedings: @jonsoltz. You can also follow my tweets as I watch the hearing, which will be significantly more irreverent and less informative: @rockrichard.

Hayden's Latest CYA

Matthew Alexander — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:07:01 GMT

Michael V. Hayden, the former CIA director, voices criticism for the Obama Administration's policies in deterring future terrorist attacks in a recent Washington Post Op-Ed. It's hard to give credence to someone who authorized war crimes, repeatedly, or who's actions (the torture and abuse of detainees) resulted in thousands of new recruits for Al Qaida, costing us the lives of American troops on the ground.

That said, it's easy to see through Hayden's superficial arguments. Let's call them what they are. They are NOT about keeping America safe. Hayden is concerned about being prosecuted as a war criminal and this is part of an orchestrated defense, the hollow argument of which goes, "It worked, so it's legal." General Hayden, chemical weapons work. But you didn't authorize CIA agents to use them even though they might have saved American lives. Jumping on the bandwagon of fear-mongering and criticizing the Justice Department's handling of Abdulmullatab is Hayden's method for shielding against the Justice Department's investigation of war crimes committed by CIA agents, which may ultimately lead to the top.

Hayden blames the Obama Justice Department for treating would be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmullatab as a criminal. He is a criminal. And treating him as one denies Al Qaida, or any group that Abdulmullatab associated with, the ability to harness the publicity of his gross attempted act. Perhaps Hayden lacks perspective of never having been on the ground in the Middle East and working with Arabs or Muslims. Because he has missed the point of how Al Qaida recruits and why men like Umar Farouk Abdulmullatab join a terrorist group and decide to blow themselves up along with innocent Americans.

Al Qaida is leveraging the prestige of becoming a 'Holy Warrior.' By criminalizing terrorists rather than designating them as enemy combatants, we deny them that advantage. The same for prosecuting terrorists in U.S. courts.

When I was interrogating in Iraq, I used the same approach. There is another concept in Middle Eastern culture that I used to counter Al Qaida's strategy -- shame. Criminalizing the behavior of terrorists makes it shameful, not prestigious, and shifts how moderate Muslims view men like Abdulmullatab. To elevate their stature aids Al Qaida in achieving one of their strategic objectives, winning over the hearts and minds of those in the middle.

Hayden, as a four-star general from the intelligence field, should understand the importance of strategic objectives over tactical ones. The strategic battle we must win is the support of moderate Muslims, thereby denying Al Qaida new recruits. By criminalizing men like Abdulmullatab, we take a step towards doing just that. As such, the Obama Administration has taken a large step towards keeping America safe.

Boehner Thinks Gay Soldiers are Un-American, aren't People

Richard Allen Smith — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:55:08 GMT

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a policy that removes brave, qualified American servicemembers from their jobs in service to their country. It would appear that House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) thinks that gays who have served their country and been removed from service are either not people, or are un-American:

Boehner predicted that any action on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would lead to a "divisive debate" and "do nothing more than distract the real debate that should occur here about helping to get our economy going again and getting American people back to work."

Repealing DADT would allow qualified gay troops who have been discharged as a result of the failed, discriminatory policy to return to work. It would also allow qualified gay Americans who have heard the call to service in uniform to serve their country without sacrificing their integrity.

As best I can tell, either John Boehner doesn't really want Americans to have jobs in a field in which they are qualified to serve, he doesn't think gays are real Americans, or he doesn't think they are people.

What the Minority Leader fails to realize, however, is that there is nothing more American than the fight against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Gay Americans want nothing more than to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, as the saying goes. That's why they are fighting this discriminatory policy, which places no faith in the professionalism of our military. Indeed, nothing is more American than going out and fighting for the job you want, or seeking to right an injustice that prevents the best person qualified for a job from getting it. Nothing is more American than insuring our national security is preserved to its fullest measure, rather than cowering behind irrational fears. Gays are fighting against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because as patriotic Americans, there is nothing else they could do. And that's why, as patriotic Americans, we must fight to end this deplorable policy as well. It's not a "gay" fight. It's an American fight.

Decision Made: New York is Out

Richard Allen Smith — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 03:28:42 GMT

WaPo reports that the decision is made and the terrorist trials won't be held in New York City. Traditional media is spinning it as a "set back" for the Administration. I really don't get why. KSM and other conspirators will be tried in civilian courts, as they should be, and not in a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay. Sounds like a win for the Administration to me.

KSM, Others may be Tried Outside of NYC

Richard Allen Smith — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:01:39 GMT

After New York Governor David Patterson and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have expressed displeasure with the idea of Khalid Sheik Muhammad and other terrorism trials being held in the Federal Court located in Manhattan, it appears the Administration might be considering moving the trial. Here is a surprise for you: I kind of agree.

To understand why, first we have to look at Mayor Bloomberg's objections:

Mr. Bloomberg said that a more secure location, like a military base, would be less disruptive and less costly. His remarks echoed growing opposition from Wall Street executives, the real estate industry and neighborhood groups, who have questioned the burdens that such a trial would bring to a heavily trafficked area of the city.
"It's going to cost an awful lot of money and disturb an awful lot of people," Mr. Bloomberg said at a news conference in Brooklyn. "My hope is that the attorney general and the president decide to change their mind."

The objections aren't pant-wetting hysteria about New York City becoming a target for terrorism yet again, or KSM's seductive voice being given a microphone to speak in tongues that will immediately convert anyone who hears him to militant Islam, or the need to try him without due process in a military tribunal.

The objections are fiscal. The city of New York will have to spend a lot of money for the Federal Government's trial. If there is a way that a Federal civilian court could convene for the trial outside the city, that might be a better idea.

I'm not saying I'm completely on the Mayor's side on this. But I have to admit he has a point, and if his requests can be met while still trying KSM and other detainees in the federal court system, it may be worth looking at. Of course, I'm open to debate on this.