I would love to see everyone who leaked operational details of the bin Laden raid prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If Mr. Obama participated, and they started with him, that would be fine by me. “As far as prosecutions, well, good luck with that. The perception in the halls of government is that anything ordered by the White House is automatically legal, as if by some royal decree but this is not the case”.
I found interesting things here: http://sofrep.com/10674/seal-team-six-and-the-white-house-throw-opsec-to-the-wind/
The nation-state structure was grafted onto the Middle East by Europeans in the aftermaths of two World Wars. Although it is reasonable to commiserate with residents there, there does not seem to be a great motivation to feel so very bad. Those in power in the region sided with the losers, twice, and bore the consequences. As a result, there are nation-states now that were mostly drawn by bureaucrats who might even have meant well. Whether or not they meant well, and I do not argue that issue either way here, the divisions they drew were artificial, as compared to the previous single reality of The Caliphate, both the very real Ottoman version in place until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the vision of a unified world under Islam that had been driving Muslims in their conquest of region after region across centuries.
In modern times, we continue to conflate dealing with or warring against nations with handling or eliminating terrorists. The repeatedly disastrous results across decades are, I maintain, the inevitable result of believing that the problem of eliminating terrorists must be dealt with by forming alliances with Middle Eastern nations to pursue what we, naively, frame as a common goal: The elimination of terrorists.
Instead, we should be dealing with two different goals, using two different strategies. One goal can continue to focus on dealing with, trading with, and pursuing common interests with nation-states wherever they exist, not to exclude the Middle East. Separate from these efforts, however, and only marginally related to them, should be our second focus: The elimination of terrorists who target civilian populations, make plans to harm us or our allies, and who have the resources to inflict wide-spread damage or pull off raids that harms our citizens or our interests.
The broad summary is that we would continue to deal with nations on economic and political agreements, but would consider the identification and elimination of terrorists a separate activity that we pursue with the same regard for territorial boundaries that they show as they move back and forth across borders and deliver their chaos and destruction as, where and when they please. We should visit our destruction on them, with far higher regard for innocent life than they will ever understand, as, where and when we please. We can and should locate and destroy them in their sanctuaries and training facilities, wholesale when possible, one by one when necessary, and we should do so without hesitation.
One summary is this simple: We deal peacefully with those who are willing to deal likewise with us, and perhaps with a preference for using a mechanism we understand, the nation-state. We deal lethally with those whose only demonstrated intent is to destroy us or those we deal with.
Let us continue together here to investigate the propriety and the practicality of such an approach.
I want to see the basic design of this country, as laid out in the Constitution, honored, understood, and played out by honorable servants of the public interest.
An article out of Augusta, Georgia informs us that businesses there were colluding with welfare recipients, who would sell their coupons at a discount to the businesses, which then redeemed them for full value. Both buyer and seller were breaking the law. (See article here: http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2014-06-10/54-defendants-charged-18-million-food-stamp-fraud-scheme-georgia.)
In exchanges where I commented on this, as one example among many, of the kind of fraud and waste of taxpayer money that simply must be hunted down and eliminated, I was asked by one lover of government programs whether I thought it was the fault of the government somehow that individuals are so dishonest.
Obviously, the answer must be no. That dishonesty falls on those individuals.
What falls on the government, which is to say us, is blame for providing ever more opportunities for this kind of abuse by creating program after program, in which more and more money is handled by more and more people further and further from its source, so that no meaningful accounting or supervision is possible or practical.
The further you send the money away from the taxpayer, the more layers you inject, the less possible it becomes to know where the money goes, how it’s handled, or who gets it. Ever-expanding government is simply not the answer to any legitimate desire.
First draft 6/12/2014 11:52
Each Executive Order must include citations in support of its constitutionality, citations in support of its consistency with existing federal law, and provisions for automatic withdrawal upon a finding by either the House or Senate that the Order violates Constitutional provisions or existing federal law. For purposes of this Order, “existing” refers to the period leading up to and including the date of signing of the Order.
We need someone in the White House who understands that the American Revolution, at just over 200 years, is just getting started. That’s me.
We need someone in the White House who does not favor any party just because it is that party. That’s me.
We need someone in the White House who understands that checks and balances serve a vital purpose. That’s me.
We need someone in the White House who owes no industry, no organization, no power-broker anything. That’s me.
We need someone in the White House who understands secular government as the best friend of religious and nonreligious citizens alike. That’s me.
We need someone in the White House who cheered Obama’s promise to have the most transparent administration in history. That’s me.
We need someone in the White House who understands that religion is a deeply personal issue and as a result will both respect the religious beliefs of others and insure that no one’s religious beliefs can be a compelling argument for determining national policy. That’s me.