US President Barack Obama used a prime-time address to the nation from the White House today to confirm the withdrawal of about 10,000 troops from Afghanistan this year. Mr Obama said a further 23,000 troops would be brought back to America by mid-2012 – ending the US military “surge” in the war-torn nation.

“After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan Security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support,” he said. “By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.

“We are starting this drawdown from a position of strength. Al-Qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11.”

The US currently has about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, so even after all of the surge troops leave, the military will still have nearly 70,000 forces in the country.

Responding to Mr Obama’s address, House Speaker John Boehner said he was pleased the president recognised that success in Afghanistan was paramount.

However, he cautioned, “It is my hope that the president will continue to listen to our commanders on the ground as we move forward. Congress will hold the administration accountable for ensuring that the pace and scope of the drawdown does not undermine the progress we’ve made thus far”.

General David Petraeus and top Pentagon officials had asked for a slower drawdown through the (northern) summer of 2012 to allow them to solidify gains in southern Afghanistan and to mount counter-insurgency operations in eastern districts.

Senator John McCain said Mr Obama’s decision, communicated to senior national security officials yesterday represented an “unnecessary risk” and said Gen Petraeus and Defence Secretary Robert Gates had recommended a “more modest withdrawal”.

More HERE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Just when it appeared that public interest was fading, celebrity developer Donald Trump has revived the theory that President Barack Obama was born overseas and helped expose the depth to which the notion has taken root—a New York Times poll Thursday found that a plurality of Republicans believe it.

If you haven’t been trolling the fever swamps of online conspiracy sites or opening those emails from Uncle Larry, you may well wonder: Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there?

The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama.

So you Democrats are to blame for this? Interesting. And a lot of the early believers were….9/11 Twoofers, who were and are primarily liberals and Democrat voters.

While there is no grain of truth to either fantasy, there’s something else when it comes to Obama: A visceral reaction against him, a deep sense that the first black president, with liberal views and a Muslim name, must be—in some concrete, provable way—foreign.

Well, at least he didn’t call Birthers “raaaaacists”, which is the norm for left leaners.

Then, as Obama marched toward the presidency, a new suggestion emerged: That he was not eligible to serve.

That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.

“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.

So, there it is: this whole thing was started by Hillary supporters. So, you can Blame Yourselves.

Politico goes on to provide the “debunking”, but, actually makes a mistake when discussing the Certificate Of Live Birth which was released by Team Obama, and which many proclaimed was a fake, particularly since it was released at the Daily Kos, along with the whiny “Fight The Smears” website

FactCheck.org, the non-partisan website, was allowed to examine the physical copy of the birth certificate in August 2008, and concluded it was real, that it had a raised seal, a signature and met all the State Department criteria for proof of citizenship. Combined with the state’s recognition that the record was real—and contemporary newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth, submitted by the hospitals —they concluded that he was a natural born citizen.

Actually, no. They viewed the same COLB, not the physical copy of the BC. FactCheck calls it a BC, but, it was still the same COLB.

Look, regardless, it is time to put this silliness away, folks. I’ve blogged this issue a few times, in a “just wondering” tone. Hey, if the NY Times can “just wonder” in Feb 2008 if McCain was eligible to be President because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone (shortly after Liberals floated this, and the Times did it again in July 2008), I can “just wonder” why Obama won’t release the long form. If the NY Times can “just wonder” if McCain was having a resurgence of cancer without proof, I can wonder if there is something on the BC that needs to be hid. If the Times can “just wonder” if McCain had an affair, we can “just wonder” if the long form BC has “Muslim” in the box marked religion. If the NY Times can….well, they run lots of “just wondering” stories about Republicans. It’s high time to put this conspiracy theory about Obama away (even though Liberals still whine a bit about 9/11 being an inside job and Bush stealing the 2000 and 2004 elections).

First, Obama will never release the long form. The media demanded McCain’s, but, will never demand Obama’s. He certainly knows this will make right side voters look foolish. 2nd, as I’ve said many times, there is a 99.9% chance that the only thing you might find will be some embarrassing information on it, but nothing that would disqualify him. 3rd, if Donald Trump wants to go full on crazy, let him. But, don’t follow. Because Trump is no Conservative. And there are many more issues to deal with in this country. We can’t afford to lose in 2012 and have 4 more years of this incompetent hack destroying our country. If he does win, we need to make sure we hold the House, and take control of the Senate. Let’s deal with real issues that we can do something about.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Former President George W. Bush is denying a report that he once said he would have endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 if the Democrat had asked.

“This is ridiculous and untrue,” Bush spokesman David Sherzer told POLITICO. “President Bush proudly supported John McCain in the election and voted for him.”

A blog post on the website of the Financial Times claimed Tuesday that Bush made the remarks during an Oval Office meeting with British dignitaries, including former Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

“I probably won’t even vote for the guy,” the FT reports Bush having said of McCain.

“I had to endorse him,” Bush is reported to have said. “But I’d have endorsed Obama if they’d asked me.”

Who are you going to believe, a guy who sat on what would have been a HUGE story during the 2008 Silly Season, or Bush, who knows what he said better? I’m going with Bush. He may have been a Big Government Social Conservative (really, I equate him more with a JFK liberal), but, there was no possible way he would have endorsed Obama, who was continuously slamming and slurring him all during the campaign, and certainly Bush could have seen what a disaster an Obama presidency would have been.

Meanwhile, the Typical Unhinged Liberals are showing up in the reviews of Decision Points at Amazon by people who didn’t even read the book

• worst president ever What is this? a recall of how he fleeced a nation and wrecked the environment? or how he stirred up terrorism by murdering thousands of innocent people in the middle east. I don’t have to read it. I was there.
• Don’t buy it! If you do buy it, you support a criminal, a man who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of lives. Think about it.
• Best of recent crime fiction! Too bad this guy will never even be held partly responsible for the decline and fall of the American Empire.
• Great Insight into the Mind of a Mass Murderer This fascinating account of the life and crimes of former US President George W. Bush is a riveting insight into one of the world’s greatest criminal minds and mass murderers. Having remained silent for two years following his ousting as President, Bush now lifts the lid on the Whitehouse Murders and an array of other criminal activities that have blighted his past.

  From his own admission as “the costliest mistake I have ever made” relating to his decision to not admit a 1976 conviction for a drink driving offence when running for the Whitehouse, to his friendship with fellow killer Tony Blair, whom Bush once alarmingly likened to Churchill, it’s all here, the lies, the deceit, the condoning of water-boarding torture methods on Iraqi prisoners, the illegal invasion of foreign lands and the massacre of innocents in what has to be the cornerstone of any library dealing with True Crime. The best read since “The Jeffrey Dahmer Story: An American Nightmare”… but it’s not recommended as bedside reading when alone in the house. A truly chilling book!

And it goes on and on. Funny part, that last comment, the Moonbat messed up and gave the book 4 stars.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. sit back and Relax. we’ll dRive!

By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.
“Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush’s name while campaigning this year,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
“But that doesn’t mean that Americans regret their decision to put Obama in the White House in 2008. By a 50 to 42 percent margin, the public says that Obama has done a better job than Sen. John McCain would have done if he had won. And by a 10-point margin, Americans also say that Joe Biden has done a better job than Sarah Palin would have done as vice president,” adds Holland.

I’ve got this ingenious idea for Obama and Dems to help redeem themselves for this midterm. It is totally original! Blame Bush for everything Obama has screwed up! It’s worked so well so far, why not amp it up a bit?

It’s too bad Jimmy Carter wasn’t included in the poll. As far as I’m concerned, he was our worst President….until Obama brought his change!

Hat tip: Hot Air

I’ll only mention later in passing just how much respect I normally have for Charles Krauthammer. For now, there’s just too much antipathy brewing within (if you catch my tea allusion). While right on the Right almost all the time, Dr. K has been too elitist by half on the Tea Party/Christine O’Donnell issue this week.

On Fox News as well as in his highly influential Friday Washington Post column, Dr. K’s resentment about the “Tea Party” victory of Christine O’Donnell over establishment RINO Mike Castle has been palpable. He and other conservative elites yap on and on about “The Bill Buckley Rule” — support the most conservative candidate who is electable — completely missing the point about O’Donnell’s opponent, the popular, electable, but decidedly un-conservative Castle.

While Dr. K and cronies were willing to accept Republican Lite as an acceptable status quo rather than confront it as a decades-old destructive political force to eschew, Mike Castle, in their view the lesser of two evils, was apparently comforted in his loss by phone calls from Sen. Harry Reid and Veep Joe Biden, two pillars of conservatism. Um, hello? As a corollary of the Rush LImbaugh Rule — support the most conservative candidate — one must ask whether it is better to have a GOP-majority Senate full of Mike Castles, or better instead to fight the good conservative fight, even if as an underdog.

Foes of conservatism in the liberal progressive establishment are mostly stepping back and letting the right eat their own on this one. In fact, of the three opinion columns in the WaPo today commenting on O’Donnell’s victory as the GOP candidate for Biden’s Delaware Senate seat, only knee-jerk Obama apologist Eugene Robinson actually had something positive to write about her:

O’Donnell is poised and telegenic, with a sparkle that her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, will be hard-pressed to match. She has mastered what should be called the Sarah Palin Affect — the perkiness, the folksiness, the religiosity, the occasional flash of bared fangs — and she performs it well.

While Republican pooh-bahs in Washington and Wilmington argue over whether to pour any real money into the race — or just give it up as lost — O’Donnell will be showered with campaign cash from Tea Party groups and supporters across the country. If Democrats mount an energetic campaign, and generate some enthusiasm among the party faithful, they can beat her. If they don’t, she might prevail.

Head games, to try and rally the progressive left for at least one possible victory in November? Of course. Mr. Robinson may be an Obot zombie, but he’s no fool. Still, the contrast on the editorial page was stark.

As for the other two WaPo columns today that considered the Castle vs. O’Donnell primary upset: you would think that Krauthammer and his somewhat-non-leftist WaPo colleague, former Bush speech writer Michael Gerson, would at least try to look for some silver lining in what they otherwise believe is the utter fall of GOP civilization as we knew it: the success of a true conservative senatorial candidate in troubling times.

But no. Dr. K, whom I deeply respect as one of the most foresightful, cunning, and witty of conservative thinkers, instead prefers to fire pot shots at the O’Donnell-enabling Tea Party movement such as this:

Tuesday in Delaware was a bad day not only for Republicans but also for conservatives. Tea Partyer Christine O’Donnell scored a stunning victory over establishment Republican Mike Castle. Stunning but pyrrhic. The very people who have most alerted the country to the perils of President Obama’s social democratic agenda may have just made it impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate and definitively stop that agenda.

And there was this, from Gerson, who preferred in his collum to dig up dirt on O’Donnell and then belittle grassroots conservative activists, thus:

But it is also possible that the Tea Party will define the hated “establishment” not just as moderate Republicans such as Mike Castle of Delaware but also as moderate conservatives of every stripe. Many Tea Party activists espouse a “constitutionalism” that amounts to an extreme libertarianism. Their goal is not just deficit reduction but the dismantling of the modern state. And they may prove harder to tame than some imagine.

And that would be a bad thing, Mr. Gerson? If one considers that “the modern state” has been co-opted by progressives from both parties, who consider the United States Constitution as an impediment rather than a cherished gift from our Founding Fathers, then maybe it does deserve some dismantling. Would Mike Castle really have voted to repeal ObamaCare, the culmination of — and the single most destructive aspect of — the progressive “modern state”? He had already promised his support on Cap and Trade, the economy killer, based on a hoax, that would be the final nail in the coffin of American capitalism and the ultimate victory for European-style progressivism on these shores. Barack Obama’s ascendancy as the Evil Emperor of Progressivism* would be complete, even with a loss in 2012.

“But it’s over, over, over,” whimper the conservative intelligentsia. There’s little hope for a Republican majority in the Senate now. All due to those meddling, high-school educated, Tea Party troglodytes, messing around with politics and other elitist things that they simply can’t understand without that silky sheen of postgraduate education to decorate their resumés.

Krauthammer scolds Sen. Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin for their “11th-hour” endorsements of O’Donnell, challenging them to now go to Delaware and “get her elected to the Senate.” Well, their job would be a whole lot easier if aloof, know-it-all conservative columnists like Dr. K weren’t blowing off about her as being un-electable, much to the benefit of her opposition. Is not the most destructive enemy the one from within?

Krauthammer claims that he wants to be proven wrong come November, that he really wants the GOP to have that 51st Senate seat. What will he actually do about it, besides denigrate candidate O’Donnell and the wisdom of those who backed her? He might discuss, for starters, Harry Reid’s embracing of O’Donnell’s Democrat challenger Chris Coons as his cuddly pet. Or, perhaps the illustrious Dr. K could remind America and Delaware that a concerted effort to energize conservatives and independents could block a Coons victory, sending Reid back to minority leader status (if he himself is not finished off in November by another Tea Party-backed candidate).

As a survivor against difficult odds himself, I was disappointed that Krauthammer chose to vacate the notion of Hope for Change and instead pine for the status quo — blaming the Tea Party in the process. That kinda misses the whole point of the Tea Party Revolution, good doctor, with all due respect.

*UPDATE: Courtesy of Moonbattery, yet more proof of the Obama regime’s destructive aims.

Two members of Arizona’s congressional delegation have introduced legislation that would allow taxpayers to “earmark” up to 10 percent of their federal income tax liability to pay down the national debt.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) held a news conference on Capitol Hill Thursday to promote their “Debt Buy-Down Act of 2010” in the House and Senate on Thursday.

“It’s time we do something about (the debt),” McCain said. “This is, I think, one way that we could not only reduce the deficit, but reduce spending at the same time.”

So, pony up, libs! Nancy, Harry, Barack, let’s see an extra 10%, shall we?

The taxpayer “earmark” would not add to the amount you owe on your taxes – but operate like the current $3 federal campaign finance check-off box on your tax return.

Of course, if it works anything like the tax in Massachusetts, not many will actually “give back,” including the Lefties. Heck, they can do it now.

The legislation directs the Internal Revenue Service to include a line on tax returns enabling taxpayers to pay up to 10 percent of their tax liability to debt reduction. The bill establishes a trust fund to set aside the taxpayer money until it is spent on debt obligations.

The bill also requires Congress to pass spending reductions equal to the amount of debt reduction designated by taxpayers, or reductions would come from across-the-board cuts in program spending levels absent congressional action.

Of course, the legislation has little chance of passing, because it would then be a way for Republicans to beat Democrats across the head with, asking them if they have pitched in, especially since so many of them want higher taxes.

Flake told CNSNews.com that he thinks the American public would fully support the legislation and use their tax obligations to pay down the federal debt.

“I can’t imagine anybody not doing that,” Flake said. “I can’t imagine any taxpayer out there saying ‘I’m comfortable with the level of debt that I’m gonna pass on to my kids or grandkids,’ so I would expect that you’d have a sizable number of people check it off when they realize, ‘It’s not coming out of my refund. I’m just earmarking some of my money to go to pay down the debt, to do what these politicians all say they want to do anyway, and I’m just gonna force them to do it.’ ”

Actually, Jeff, you’re full of it, but, in a good way. He knows (well, damned well better know) that this is simply a thrown down gauntlet to Democrats, and that there is no way that the extra money will get Congress to spend less. Heck, they might spend more. It is an attempt to get Democrats to put their money where their mouths are.

*If you’ve ever drank Mezcal and eaten the worm, or seen someone do it, you’ll know how wild and crazy they act.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

Good! He’s the perfect man for the job.

The problems of the United States didn’t start with Obama: The weak-kneed military policy that has us fighting wars that we can never hope to win, because we never really fight to win, because we never want to offend our enemies, has been around for decades, and may even date back to Johnson’s initial refusal to bomb Hanoi. Even Reagan helped to perpetuate America’s de facto “open borders” policy when, in 1986, he allowed the first immigration amnesty to be signed into law without any real accompanying effort to seal our southern border. Big Government big spending goes back at least to Woodrow Wilson, and, after hitting $100 billion in 1943, the national debt broke the $1 TRILLION mark in 1982, and exceeded $10 trillion in 2008, under George W. Bush. It was also on Bush’s watch that the housing “bubble” – which, granted, was fostered by Bush’s Democrat-controlled second-term Congress – appeared and burst, with devastating world-wide economic consequences that we still suffer. And, to name just two more items on an ever-growing list, Iran first openly became a problem under Carter, and Israel, our loyal and indispensable friend and ally in the Middle East, has been a source of American concern ever since its founding in 1948.

Most of our problems didn’t start with Obama, but it may be because of him that we will finally take our first steps toward solving them.

Americans are a tolerant people and, for most of our history, have had faith in the competence and good intentions of our government. That’s why, whenever a real or seeming threat or emergency has appeared, we’ve generally – even as recently as the passage of TARP under George W. Bush – gone along with the government and, even if we disagreed, given it “the benefit of the doubt” and done little more than to grumble while allowing existing problems to stay in place and even more to pile on.

We’ve been able to do this because, with prior Presidents, even creeps like Nixon, or fools like Carter, or impeachably slick rascals like Clinton, we’ve always been able to maintain our “presumption of good will” – the feeling that whatever else they were or were up to, we could count on our Presidents to put the well-being of our country first above all other things.

Obama is something else, entirely: Whether by apologizing to anyone who will listen; or bowing to every little rinky-dink potentate he comes across; or chumming-up to dictators; or saying that we have for too long ignored Europe’s world leadership; or declaring himself a citizen of the world while purposely slighting England and Israel, two of our strongest and most loyal allies, he has brought many Americans to doubt if he’s even on our side.

Add to Obama’s foreign policy failings his record at home; his forced passing of Healthcare Reform against that stated will of the American people; his continuing efforts to push “Cap and Trade”, despite a growing body of evidence against global warming and the certain knowledge that its supporters lied; his failure to take any action about illegal immigration except to denounce the Arizona law supported by more than 80% of the American people – including 75% of Democrats – and to, presumably, instruct his head of ICE to tell the press that, because he doesn’t like the law, he may not deport known illegals brought to him by Arizona authorities.

Add also the “shadow government” of far-left “czars” that Obama has put together; his arrogance and refusal to consider any ideas or see any truth but his own; and the fact that – unlike Clinton, who would twist words to try to force new meanings – Obama simply lies, outright, and even the most oblivious must see that we have real reason to rejoice that it was he and not McCain who won the election.

With McCain, it would have just been more growing big government, but because McCain is a nice man, and obviously well-meaning, we would have continued to put up with it. With Obama, however — the most divisive President since Harry Truman; the man Newt Gingrich describes as the “most radical president in American history”; the man whose policies inspired the TEA Party movement — it seems that we have, at last, a President who has sufficiently enraged the American people and made them feel such shame at his policies and practices and such fear for the future of this country that they will finally DO something to restrict him to a single term, to repeal his works, and to restore America to its proper path and former glory.

In his famous “Rendezvous with Destiny” speech, Ronald Reagan said that this country and its people are “…the last best hope of man on Earth …”. All the world depends on America to lead the way and to be “the shining city on a hill.” To the extent that Obama’s excesses can inspire that once again to happen, he truly IS mankind’s greatest hope.

–END –

A sit-in at Senator John McCain’s Tucson office Monday led to a trip to jail for four people, three of them illegal immigrants, and could now mean that they will be kicked out of the country.

“We’re dedicated,” said Yahaira Carrillo, who came to the United States 18 years ago illegally with her parents. “This is home. I don’t know what life is like in Mexico, I don’t know what working there is like.”

“Everyone was very supportive,” said Mohammad Abdollahi about the staff and officers whom he met on Monday. He came with his parents from Iran more than twenty years ago, when he was three years old.

If you are an illegal, perhaps you should not pop your head up and put yourself in the crosshairs of law enforcement. Seems pretty common sense, especially since ICE initiated deportation proceedings against the three. Though it is doubtful that Abdollahi will be deported, since he is from Iran, and is gay (the other two are illegals from Mexico, whose parents brought them when they were much younger). Which is why I have maintained that there are certain circumstances where we cannot just get rid of them all. Nor can we just provide amnesty. There needs to be a big fine. Pay back taxes and Social Security fees. They must speak, or learn, English. They must have a damned good reason for staying. And, like most other countries require, these people must provide value. Otherwise, hit the road!

And we need to secure the borders first, before anything is even considered.

Meanwhile, the Costa Mesa city council has declared that it will not be a sanctuary city, and will crack down further on illegals. Of course, there always have to be a few whiners

The resolution passed despite pleas from community members. No one in the audience spoke in favor of it.

“Immigrants are part of America,” Silvia Hernandez told the council. “We work, pay taxes, go to church and participate in our communities. We need a solution that brings people out of the shadows.”

Yeah. Legal immigrants. Most of the rest are criminals, and can get the hell out.

Attorney Peter Johnson was on Fox News a few days ago with Megyn Kelly. Johnson suggests that as a naturalized citizen, Shahzad can be charged with treason, and his citizenship could possibly be revoked. This goes back to discussion about Senator John McCain’s Senate Bill 3081, which would allow for American citizens engaged in terrorism to be held without trial, violating the Fifth and Sixth amendments.

My position on SB3081 is we must find another way to do this, and I talked to Brandon Andrews in Senator Jim Inhofe’s office about the bill. Senator Inhofe is a co-sponsor of the bill. I asked why we did not use the charge of treason, which certainly seems to fit these situations. There was no real answer to that question.

One odd thing about SB3081, however, is that it only deals with American al-Qaeda and not American Taliban, and perhaps not al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, because, as Inhofe’s office told me, “Afghanistan is too sensitive right now.” The Taliban in Afghanistan has taken credit for the Times Square failed bombing, although that claim is unconfirmed.

According to Attorney General Eric Holder, Faisal Shahzad was questioned and then Mirandized. Where does the charge of “treason,” fit in these attacks. I think it fits nicely. And what about revoking citizenship, including U.S. citizenship that is coupled with citizenship in another country? This is a complicated subject.

This is important legislation, and as it is written right now, it significantly transforms the rights of a non-military American citizen to a fair and speedy civil trial. I agree with the spirit of 3081, I just hope we can find another way to accomplish what is necessary to accomplish. I hope you will read two articles about SB308: John McCain SB3081: Hold American’s Indefinitely without Trial and Senator Inhofe’s Office on SB3081.

More breaking stuff on this creep at Hot Air

Last week, I posted on Senator John McCain’s Senate Bill 3081 which, if passed, will allow American citizens suspected of terrorism to be held indefinitely without trial, and/or put through the military court system. Senator James Inhofe is one of the surprising co-sponsors of this bill titled “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010. I spoke to Brandon Andrews in Inhofe’s office about the bill, which he seemed well acquainted with. Right up front, I want to say that I completely agree with the spirit of this bill, but I fervently hope we can find another way.

Al-Qaeda American Adam Gadahn and al-Qaeda Anwar al-Awalaki were discussed. There is no doubt it is a new day in America, and there is an obvious need to find a way to handle American jihadists. Can we find a way to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and bring non-military Americans to a military trial? And how in the world did these Senators let this bill get this far?

First, this bill is clearly not in line with the Fifth or Sixth Amendments which says an American citizen cannot be held for capital crimes without the benefit of a Grand Jury indictment, and citizens must have the right to a speedy and public trial.”  (See the text of both amendments at the bottom of this article.)

Brandon Andrews stressed that an American citizen, under SB3081 would not have the privilege of a Grand Jury if found to be a high-value detainee, but the bill provides for a final determination of the citizen’s status by certain members of Congress, and the determination is to be made within 48 hours. If the detainee is determined not to be a “high-value detainee,” or “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent,” then the citizen moves into the federal court system, or is released, and is out of the reach of SB3081.

If the citizen is deemed to be a “high-value detainee,” or an “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent,” the the citizen is covered by SB3081, and is not entitled to a civilian court, a Grand Jury or a speedy trial.

I asked about al-Qaeda being specified in the bill, but not the Taliban. I asked about American Adam Gadahn, a Taliban al-Qaeda leader, and was surprised to learn that Gadahn is not covered by this bill, because Afghanistan is a sensitive subject, these days. So, theoretically, and realistically, if Gadahn is captured, he will go through a civilian court.

If American Anwar al-Alwalki, a cleric in Yemen with 9/11 terrorist ties, as well as ties to Ft. Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, is captured he qualifies for SB3081.

I asked if a non-military American citizen has ever been tried in a military court. He said they had, and said he just had that information in front of him, but couldn’t pull it up at that moment. He said he would email the information. At one point he said I should have it in 10 minutes. After the phone conversation, the email did not come. I called him back. He said he would re-send it. I sent him an email to verify my email address. I still have not received the information, and have left a couple of voicemails for him but he has not returned the calls. This is unlike the way Inhofe’s office usually works.

From my own search, I did find a couple of instances of non-military citizens in military courts, but they were in the 1800’s. In 1866, Ex parte Milligan was decided in the U.S. Supreme court, ruling it unconstitutional for non-military citizens to be tried in military tribunals when civilian courts are still operating. That decision arose from 5 Americans planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prison-of-war camps. SCOTUS found that military tribunals were illegal in states upholding the U.S. Constitution.

We have large numbers of American citizens joining the Islamic jihad effort, and we are increasingly at jeopardy from those citizens here, and those who have gone to Islamic countries to train. There is no doubt, it is a new day in America.

According to Brandon Andrews, there are some 3,000 Americans in Yemen in training camps right now. Yemen cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is a good example. He is New Mexico born-and-bred, but has fled to Yemen. It is alleged he had numerous contacts with jihadists in America: meeting with two of the 9/11 hijackers, correspondence with Fort Hood murderer, Nidal Malik Hasan, and perhaps he motivated Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

President Obama has approved the “targeted killing” of al-Awalaki.

During my phone conversation, there was no conclusion from Senator Inhofe’s spokesman, Brandon Andrews, about how this bill works with the U.S. Constitution. According to Mr. Andrews, there is probably language in SB3081 that needs a review or clarification.

For your reference, here is the text of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments:

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the mIlitia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for he same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitutionthe

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of counsel for his defence.

Back to my question of how these distinguished Senators let this poorly written legislation get this far, I don’t have the answer but will venture a guess: perhaps the routine is that the “needs” are put on paper in the form of a bill, with all it’s warts and pimples, in the hope they then get fleshed out in committees.

Related and Background:

John McCain SB3081: Holding Americans Indefinitely without Trial

Can Faisal Shahzad be Charged with Treason or have his Citizenship Revoked