Trials at Gitmo

Michelle Malkin reported this week that all detainees at Guantanamo Bay have received a tribunal, and further detainees should receive the same.

The process (Adobe Reader Required) seems to be dated Jan. 31 of this year, but that may only be the date of publication, as the Administrative Review Procedures Notification, which is used to notify detainees of the trial verdict, seems to be dated earler.

The ARP Notification seems to clearly indicate further steps a detainee can take in order to, in effect, "appeal" the decision to continue his detention. It also clearly states that if an Administrative Review Board determines that the detainee no longer poses a threat, that he may be released from detention.

Perhaps we jumped the gun back in April when we called for trials for these guys. But why don't we get this information for at least five to six months after it is publicly documented that these trials have taken place?

Part of the blame has to lie with the Bush Administration. I fail to see the logic in keeping this information quiet. If the MSM has downplayed it, do as Reagan did and go directly to the American people. Would making this information public bring about some military disadvantage that I don't know about? That would be one explanation, and a very good one, too, but as a non-military individual, I have my doubts.

However, politicians like John NcCain and the Donks can't seem to shut up about it. The Left is falling all over themselves trying to make a point that these terrorists haven't had a fair trial.

They do not have the right to a traditional civilian-type trial - a military tribunal (which is what they have already received) is appropriate in this situation. Should the President allow his foes to continue to make political hay of this situation? Wouldn't it make sense to at least put enough information out there to defend himself? Again, I'm just not sure. The few liberals who acknowledge that these trials took place pass them off as "not good enough". Should we treat terrorists the same as we do American shoplifters (Malkin used this analogy)? I have no doubts whatsoever as to my answer to that: NO.

It does make me curious, though, as to why a pursuasive man like President Bush wouldn't at least try to pursuade as to why information like this is so limited and/or so underreported. If the media doesn't want to report it, why not go directly to the American people like Reagan would have? Why not at least explain to us why the information is so scant? I don't want to second-guess him on a war issue, but I am confused on this one. These trials were perfectly within the bounds of the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties. Why not have us know about it? Would that pose a danger? I'm just not sure.

RWR

Vermin

The American colonists feared one group of people amongst them. This group originated in the Middle Ages,and had counted thousands of people as their victims for centuries with little punishment. This group of human parasites were hated throughout the colonies yet the magistrates would not punish them even though a majority of colonists wanted to.
Of all who sailed from England to Plymouth in 1620, not one of these two-legged "vermin" were aboard. "Vermin" is what the colonists called them parasites who fed on the unfortunate creating human misery wherever they went. Yet they were permitted coexistence within the colonies for a while anyway.There were laws,of course,prohibiting the practice of their infamous craft,but as they were masters of twisting,and manipulating the truth,ways were found around them.
In 1641, Massachusetts Bay Colony took a novel approach to the problem. The government attempted to starve out the "devils" through economic exclusion. They were denied wages,and it was thereby hoped they would perish. Four years later, Virginia followed their lead,and for while it seemed that the problem was solved. However, this is a particularly sticky group of parasites,and hard to be rid of.
In 1658 Virginia proposed what should have been the 'final solution': banishment and exile. The "treacherous ones' were cast out of the colony. At last, after enduring the psychological gloom of these hovering vultures,these birds of death, the sun came out,and all was well with the world. The elation rang from the hills for a generation!
History is not clear as to why they were ever allowed to return,but return they did like a festering pustule bringing their plague once again upon the land.In 1680, after twenty-two years of exile, the "vermin" were readmitted to the colony on the condition that they be subjected to the "strictest surveillance".
How soon they forgot! During the century that followed,the restrictions were slowly and quietly lifted and swept away,and those who were abhorred since their first appearance have wormed their way into every transaction that takes place in our society until nothing can be done without their foul odor polluting the air.
These perverters of the truth, these manipulators of the law, these usurpers of humanity, these"vermin" were lawyers!

The Revolution will not be televised.

Business as Usual?

Is there no end to the"Leviathan's" appetite? Is there no filling the cavernous belly of this vile beast?

With the president's plan to address the coming collapse of the Social Security System has come the best opportunity in years to finally put the government on a crash diet. Having no more money available in the FICA fund to "misappropriate"for the purpose of funding their "pet" projects, they will either have to cut spending,or raise taxes. It would seem that they have already seen the handwriting on the wall, and have made their decision as to what they are planning to do; business as usual!

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said last week for the first time explicitly, that he expects tax increases to be part of any future agreement to reduce the federal budget deficit. Greenspan,appearing before the Senate Budget Committee, also acknowledged that his support for tax cuts in early 2001 unintentionally led to policies that helped swing the federal budget from a surplus to a deficit.

The deficit hit a record $412 billion last year,and is projected to expand dramatically as the huge baby boom generation starts retiring and collecting Social Security in the near future. "The federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates, and ever growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years", Greenspan said in his prepared testimony last week.

It looks like the future is now for all of you tax-payers to say "hell no we won't go" to the government's plan to once again put their greedy little paws in your pockets to keep on with "business as usual". If we don't "head them off at the pass" this time,there will be the devil to pay for all posterity.

The Revolution will not be televised.

We are now Open For Comments!

Just a quick note that "The Old Sage" has made the call to open our team blog, Rocker and Sage, for comments.

I basically try to stick to Constitutional issues here, but since it's Sage's only blogging experience, he gets to post about pretty much whatever.

Let's have some fun!

RWR

Second Amendment

A month or so ago, an article was published that stated the position
taken by Condoleeza Rice on the issue of gun control,and the Second
Amendment. My journaling partner(Rocker)brought it to my attention.
I determined at that time to put up some thoughts that I had about it.

It seems that Dr. Rice was quite supportive of the amendment adding
that "we should not undermine the Constitution by picking,and choosing
our likes and dislikes of the words,and thoughts of the founding fathers",and of the amendment itself she said "the second amendment is as important as the first". If what she says is true,she need not leave
the national capital to find the enemy's flank.

Presently,the law concerning the possession of a functional firearm
in D.C. stipulates that no handguns can be registered. Even pistols
that were registered prior to the District's 1976 ban cannot be carried
from room to room in the home without a license which,of course,is never granted. Essentially,no one in the District can possess a firearm
And the law applies not just to unfit persons like felons,minors,or
the mentally incompetent,but across the board to ordinary, honest,
responsible citizens.

Under those circumstances,it would seem to me to be a good time for
Dr. Rice to use the power,and prominence of her position to ask the
D.C. Circuit,and perhaps the Supreme Court to tell us whether the
city's total ban on all functioning weapons can withstand scrutiny
under the microscope of the Second Amendment. No one should have to break the law in order to vindicate a Constitutional right.

The Revolution will not be televised.

War and Global Warming

Politics and Politicians are about one thing; increasing the power and scope of government in order to manifest the transfer of wealth (power) from the people to the government. The most efficient vehicle used in the twentieth century for this purpose has been war.

It has been said that "War is just one more government program", which puts quite an interesting socialist spin on a subject to which it is seldom applied. James Madison,"the father of the Constitution" had much to say about this subject as well. At the end of one speech he said,"No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare". This is a point that has not gone unnoticed by the powers that be in their ongoing attempt to usurp the God given rights of the people. In this statement, Madison has hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head. War has been the most efficient vehicle for governments to do what they do best, and what politicians have intended that it should do, and that is to transfer wealth(power) from you to them.

And when they get tired of war, which they will in a few years, no matter the perceived level of fear projected onto whatever "bogeyman" is the latest in line, there will be a new program to effect the continuance of the ongoing transfer which will very nicely take the place of war. That program will be environmentalism.

I'm an unusual conservative in that when it comes to human interests vs. the environment, I will always lean toward the position that I believe will best support what I feel is right for nurturing, and maintaining the environment in as close to a natural state as possible. I think this is because I see humans as "one among the animals", instead of a separate species that is somehow superior to the rest. My point here, so as to not belabor my intentions, is to say that while I support environmentalism theoretically, I am opposed to any form of unilaterrally imposed government programs designed for the said purpose of maintaining it.

The beginning of the end of the "earth conscious" movement,of which I was a part, commensurated with the formation of the E.P.A. in the 70's. Big government quickly realized both the potential, and the threat posed by that movement in the 60's, and acted as government always does by placing itself in the best possible position to further its ends, hence the formation of the E.P.A. At present, this bureaucratic arm of the government is gearing up for its future role in the transfer process. I believe when the present war cools down, environmentalism will heat up (no pun intended).

One of the major tenets of environmentalism is the current misunderstanding of the science of global warming. The ideas posed by this science were first suggested over one hundred years ago by a man named Arrhenius. It seems that he was able to calculate that planetary temperatures would rise as co2 increased in the atmosphere. With the advent of "Earth Day" in 1970 the theory of 'global warming" was off and running. Government, quick to seize any opportunity to further its ends, saw this as an advantageous moment,and took it.

Last week, I read an article which was highlighting the escalating disagreement between President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair over the effects of global warming. It seems that Blair has been frustrated in his protracted attempts to convince the president of the urgent need of American endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes air quality standards on the industrialized nations of the world. In theory,the protocol points to a situation which I believe cannot, nor should not be ignored, that being the impact of human civilization on the earth, and its environs.

However,after careful examination of the mandated standards in question, the flaws in this document become apparent, and it is easy to see why the president has not, and should not ever put his signature on it. It also points out an even more sinister truth, however, which is my argument in this instance, that being the real intention of the government, which is to create another program using fear to take freedom from the people.

Unfortunately for all of us, no matter which side you find yourself on both war and global warming are about transferring wealth plain,and simple. When you understand one, you will understand the other.

The Revolution will not be televised.

Unconstitutional Generosity

As I thought long and hard about the excellent post by "The Delftsman" which can viewed via this blog,many examples in,what has by now become a long train of like abuses came to mind. This one really jumped up,and begged to be front and center for all of the right reasons,so here goes.

In the weeks after a tsunami wreaked havoc along the coast of the Indian Ocean on December26, 2004, President George W. Bush reportedly donated $16,000 from his personal bank account to relief efforts there. Bush should be lauded for this move. Whether his donation was politically motivated, or from a deeply held desire to assist the needy is beside the point. He made a voluntary decision to give his own money to what he felt was a worthy cause, end of statement. What Bush could have, and I believe should have told the American people is:"I hope Americans will be generous in this time of need. I want to do my part, so I've written a check for $16,000 as my contribution to the relief effort. I urge all of you to do what you can to help."

Unfortunately, while in the process of making his own contribution, Bush also was stealing hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to send to the relief effort, thereby forcing Americans to both fund the relief effort, and in the long run, pay more taxes to the tune of three hundred fifty million dollars to fill the hole that was created in the budget by this act of "unconstitutional generosity".

The president had no authority to commit even one dollar of anything that hadn't been approved by Congress,which in turn had no constitutional authority to commit even one penny to even a really good cause such as this one truly is. But the president and Congress are all too often unconcerned with what they are allowed to do by the dictates of the Constitution.

Immediately after the tsunami hit, Bush pledged fifteen million in U.S. taxpayer money to the effort. two days later he added another twenty mil to that figure. On December 31, he succumbed to International pressure, much of it from his so-called "buddy",Tony Blair of Great Britain,and multiplied the pledge by the factor of ten(his idea of a good Christian tithe perhaps?) promising to take(read:steal) three hundred fifty million dollars from Americans for tsunami relief.

"Surely relief efforts such as this are the proper function of government, and we owe it as humans to help our fellow men under these circumstances" was the general sentiment expressed by most journalists who covered thestory. Not so my friends,not so.

The federal government has no right under any circumstance, no matter what the nature of that may be, to give your money to any cause no matter how charitable it may seem.Any pressure from the U.N,and other nations is beside the point, and should be seen just as it is; irrelevant,and without merit. Let them complain if they will that the richest nation on earth hasn't contributed enough. Their complaints don't justify our government officials' non-compliance with the law of the land.

The way I see it, the president provided the perfect lead as to how matters of this kind may be handled both charitably,and constitutionally.

There is an old saying, "the gift without the giver is bare". By not trusting the charity of the American people,Bush violated the Constitution of the United States. And even worse,he has denied the recipients of the relief effort the gift that is perhaps the most desirable, that being the gift of the love from the giver.

The Revolution will not be Televised.