Traitors & Villains

There are many inherent conflicts in our nation between the right of freedom of speech and the right of our nation to keep classified material out of the public eye. It is a question of what newspapers - or in the case of Jullian Assange, websites - have a right to publish and what we as a nation have a right to demand be kept from disclosure.

Some calls are easy. If the material concerns indisputable wrong doing, such as the Mai-Lai massacre in Vietnam, then its exposure is warranted. The publication of the Pentagon Papers against which Nixon fought so vociferously gave a window into how our political class got us into the Vietnam - but it revealed no real secrets. While its publication caused an uproar, virtually all of the information divulged was simply historical. But then there was Phillip Agee, once a CIA Officer and possible Cuban/KGB double agent, who published the names of undercover CIA officers in 1978. That resulted in the passage of a law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

But with Wikileaks, we are into an entirely new class of leaks. Someone in the military with a top-secret clearance, during time of war, leaked over 100,000 classified communications directly relating to the war. They passed the information to Jullian Assange who has since then published the vast majority of the documents in coordination with the New York Times (of course) Der Spiegel and The Guardian. What possible justification could there be for this massive security breach?

By all accounts, the information contained in the documents contains no new revelations. We have known for a long time that the war was not going well, that Pakistan has been a schizophrenic partner, and that Iran has been involved in the war in support of the Taliban. Assange claims that there is proof of war crimes contained in the documents though fails to point out any particular instance. This seems the penultimate exercise in throwing mud against the wall and hoping some of it sticks.

Some consequences of this massive release of our military communications in the Afghan theatre are blatantly obvious. Over the long term, the information will significantly harm our military. It provides all of our potential enemies - the Taliban and al Qaeda included - what ex CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden has called a "priceless" treasure trove of information on our methods, sources and tactics. But the most immediate damage it will do is expose hundreds of Afghans identified in the documents as people who have cooperated with American forces. These individuals now face the danger of severe reprisals, including torture and murder of them and their families. The secondary effect will be to make it much harder for our military to solicit cooperation from Afghans. This has the potential to significantly degrade our war effort and to get a lot of people killed.

All of these effects were completely foreseeable as soon as it was learned that Assange held over 100,000 classified communications from the Afghan theatre. Yet it now appears that the White House did not even object to their publication. According to Richard Fernandez,

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, explaining that the White House didn’t try to stop the publication said he met with reporters from the New York Times and sent a message through its reporters to Assange asking that he redact information in the documents that could harm US military personnel. As for the Afghans? Well what about them? Wikileaks made its pathetic effort to sanitize the data didn’t they? And if it was good for the Times and Gibbs, why shouldn’t Assange have concluded it was good enough period?

Simply put, this was an act of treason by the person who passed this information to Assange and it is an act of espionage by Assange to publish this information. Both the leaker and Assange should be shot. Unfortunately, given the First Amendment protections, it is likely Assange, at least, will never face reprisals from the U.S. government. It is a travesty.

That said, I wonder if there is any reason why the Afghans named in the documents released by Assange - and who now face torture and murder because of Assange - could not bring civil law suits in America against Assange and everyone involved in the ownership of the Wiki brand. If they cannot be shot, they should at least be reduced to a lifetime of penury.

Read More...

Summary only...

What To Do With The Wikileakers?

Rep. Peter King has called the leak of tens of thousands of classified documents to Julian Assange and Wikileaks an act of treason. King is quoted at The Hill today demanding the leaker be prosecuted "to the full extent of the law." While I certainly agree that the leak is an act of treason, I have to think that there are viable alternatives to prosecution that would allow the military to make use of the training they have invested in the leaker, such as those suggested by Gerard Van Der Luen, at American Digest.

Read More...

Summary only...

You Have Got To Be Kidding

First this from Biden . . .



Then this today from Gibbs . . .



Iraq was and is a success wholly because of our military and the Bush Administration. If the Obama administration are going to claim credit for Iraq when they spent five years in a treasonous, let me repeat that - treasonous - rear guard action to destroy our military effort solely for the purpose of gaining political power, they have no shame and they think us complete idiots. Even the fact that our troops are leaving Iraq, having achieved - in a word never to pass Obama's lips - victory, was in fact negotiated by Bush.

Time to let George Bush have the final word on behalf of all of us.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hang 'Em . . . Hang "Em High

Two years ago, I excoriated the drafters of the NIE on Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program - Thomas Fingar, Kenneth Brill, and H. Van Diepen - for drafting what was clearly then a highly politicized document that ignored the great weight of publicly available facts and, moreover, came to ridiculously unsupportable conclusions. Those conclusions included that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003, that Iran's nuclear program since was civilian in nature, that Iran would respond "rationally" to carrots and sticks, and that Iran was amendable to negotiations. It was a document drafted with the intent of tying Bush's hands in dealing with the mad mullahs.

What we have learned since is that our intelligence agencies had known for years that Iran had built a secret enrichment plant near Qom that was too small for commercial use, but the correct size for enriching uranium to weapons grade quality. That was known at the time that the NIE was released but was held in confidence by the U.S. Now we learn that Iran has been working on a critical component of atomic weapons since 2007 - in addition of course to enriching vast amounts of uranium for which they had no other use than to make atomic weapons. This from the Washington Post:

Western and U.N. nuclear officials are evaluating a secret Iranian technical document that appears to show the country's nuclear scientists testing a key component used in the detonation of a nuclear warhead, according to intelligence officials and weapons experts familiar with the document.

The document, if authenticated, could rank as one of the strongest pieces of evidence pointing to a clandestine Iranian effort to build nuclear weapons, said former intelligence officials and weapons experts. They were responding to a published report of alleged sophisticated research by Iran on one of the final stages in the construction of a nuclear device.

Excerpts from the technical paper, first reported on the Times of London Web site late Sunday, detail a four-year program by Iranian scientists to develop and test a neutron initiator, a device used to trigger a nuclear explosion.

Although the document is undated, the Times quoted foreign intelligence officials as saying it was written in 2007, more than four years after U.S. intelligence agencies believe Iran stopped research on a nuclear warhead.

"It looks bad -- there is no doubt about it," said David Albright, a former inspector with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, who reviewed the document and other papers for the London newspaper. He said work on a neutron initiator is a "very strong indicator of nuclear work." . . .

To say this comes as no surprise is an understatement. Anyone who for a second believes that Iran's nuclear program is for civilian use is naive to the point of suicidal. Bush had a window of opportunity to deal with the mad mullahs by force or the credible threat of force through 2007. When the NIE came out, it wholly emasculated the Bush regime in as much as they could no longer even credibly threaten force against Iran. As I wrote at that time, the NIE's effect would give Iran far more time to procure a nuclear arsenal, thus meaning that what we might have been able to stop with little cost would instead, eventually, require an exponentially greater cost in American blood and gold to end. Shades of Nazi Germany, circa 1937 to 1939.

In light of the revelations subsequent to the release of the NIE, it is becoming increasingly clear that what the authors of that document did amounted to treason. When Republicans again take control of Congress, one of their first acts should be to investigate the troika of Fingar, Brill and Van Diepen. Then they should be treated accordingly. I will donate the rope.

Read More...

Summary only...

This Is Not The Politics Of Fear

Any use by the right of the image of 9-11 or bin Laden - or any discussion of the terrorist threat - is decried as an unfair attack by the left. Wanting to keep the spotlight off their own fatal weaknesses, they label these issues as the "politics of fear." If that is the "politics of fear," I wonder then, how should we label the type of politics we see evinced in the latest DNC ad?

Howard Dean is running an ad taking McCain's statement that we could stay in Iraq for 100 years and running it wholly out of context. That is simply the banal intellectual dishonesty that we have come to expect from today's Democrats. But the ad below also contains footage of an al Qaeda suicide bomb and footage of our soldiers in 2004 being attacked by a road side bomb. The footage does not show if our soldiers were injured, but given that they were on a foot patrol and given their reaction to the blast, it certainly gives that perception. It is precisely what one would expect to see in an al Qaeda propaganda film - and given its nature, it may well have originated from precisely that source.



We are in a war. Our Democrats have tied their hopes, their dreams, and their very perception of America on labeling that war a defeat. That such an attitude is acceptable is evidence of the decayed and degraded state of the left who, in their Marxian world view, see America as evil.

Their use of footage of an al Qaeda suicide bombing is particularly ironic. This is precisely the type of image that would bring an immediate charge of "politics of fear" were the right to use that same footage to explain why we absolutely must succeed in Iraq. But the left feels free to use it to make an argument that we should just give up. Its not only an intellectual double standard, it is craven and immoral.

But exponentially worse is using footage of our troops being bombed. That is so far beyond the pale, so repugnant, so unpatriotic, and so enamored of defeat as to be abhorent. It shows a complete lack of any respect for our soldiers and their families. Only a person bereft of any principles and recognizing no value greater than achieving partisan political gain could be so twisted as to find such footage acceptable for any reason, let alone an ad advocating that we surrender to the craven bastards who set off that bomb.

So I ask again, if any mention of terrorism is the politics of fear, than what is using footage of successful al Qaeda suicide attacks and footage of our soldiers being bombed while on a foot patrol in Iraq? The politics of treason, perhaps?

Read More...

Summary only...

More Relating To The Mad Archbishop of Canterbury

More things related to the mad Archbishop of Canterbury who has called for the official recognition of aspects of Sharia law in Britain.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have previously blogged on the Archbishop's madness here and here. And I have posted on a report about the prevelance of forced marraige, female genital mutilation, and honor violence in the UK's Muslim population - all of which have a direct or indirect relation to Islam and Sharia law - here. The report also dicusses the problems Britain faces in trying to end these scourges.

There is a case today before Senior Law Judges in the UK where the plaintiff is asking the Court to hold a "forced" marriage - which are recognized as valid under Sharia law - be held null for lack of consent under the public policy of Britain:

Three senior judges are to rule on the legality of an arranged marriage conducted in the UK under sharia law, a judgment that could have profound consequences for British Muslims.

Last week, as Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, declared it was 'inevitable' that certain parts of Islamic law would be introduced into Britain, the Court of Appeal was told how a 26-year-old British Muslim with learning difficulties was married over the telephone to a woman in Bangladesh. It was arranged by the man's father and deemed lawful under sharia law.

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Hall and Lady Justice Hallett were asked by the man's family to reject an earlier decision that, because the groom was unable to give his consent, the marriage was unlawful. Mr Justice Wood said that the true test into the validity of the marriage was 'whether the marriage is so offensive to the conscience of the English court that it should refuse to recognise and give effect to the proper foreign law'.

The judge added that the long-standing British policy to recognise sharia marriages conducted abroad should be offset by the understanding that 'there are occasions when such a marriage cannot be recognised in England, for example where to do so would be repugnant to public policy'.

The case was brought by Westminster city council community services department after the local authority raised concerns about a marriage in which the groom could not possibly have given consent because of his learning disabilities.

The marriage took place in September 2006. Although the bridegroom stayed in London and listened to the ceremony by speakerphone, the ceremony took place in Bangladesh and was declared valid under sharia law.

Yogi Amin of the law firm Irwin Mitchell, representing Westminster council, said: 'This case highlights that the law in this country may clash with sharia law and the cultural wishes of the family.' He added: 'The High Court held that the marriage in this case ... is not valid under English law, and that any marriage entered into by this vulnerable adult whether inside or outside England will not be recognised under English law.'

Legal experts said the case would have ramifications for plans to make forced marriages - often arranged marriages involving youngsters - prohibited in the UK under case law. . . .

Read the article. It should be noted that the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has "block[ed] attempts to criminalise forced marriage."

The reaction to the Archbishop across the pond has been heartening. For example, from the Times today, Minnette Marrin writes: "Archbishop, You Have Committed Treason." Then there is this exceptional article in the Times which does an excellent job of catalouging not only the "backlash" to the Archbishop's remarks, but also gives possibly the most thorough and balanced discussion of Sharia law and its application in other countries that I have seen so far..

The Head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has weighed in on the contreversy, saying "I don't believe in a multicultural society. When people come into this country they have to obey the laws of the land."

And Ali Eteraz writes why he is oposed to Sharia courts in the UK.

Read More...

Summary only...

Across the Pond, Fury and Reflection

In the wake of the attempted socialist coup by Gordon Brown, the royal subjects are reacting differently – but there is no acceptance.

This from EU Referendum

It isn't over yet, of course. There is still the ratification, and the Lords could give the government a hard time on the referendum. It will be a pleasure watching them squirm.

In the meantime, we don't need to get (too) emotional. I prefer cold, hard hatred, from the deepest recesses of my soul, combined with a studied contempt for these fools who think they can ignore the lessons of centuries and run rough-shod over us. They have had their fun – the reckoning is to come.

And the fine folk at Brits At Their Best reflect on what could motivate Gordon Brown to take this action:

One reason is that he is a Socialist and Socialism is a global religion. It hates nation states. It wants one allegiance to one global state in which national politicians such as Master Blair can play lofty roles. Socialism is an ignorant religion that ignores the scientific facts of freedom, the essential connection between a people being free and being prosperous, the indisputable link between a people’s safety and education and happiness and their ability to make local decisions about their police and their schools and their livelihoods.

But there is another reason for Brown and Miliband and Blair and Heath and Clarke and Major and Heseltine and all the rest of them to support the creation of the EU and the destruction of Britain, aside from the obvious reason that they do not like Britain much, do not understand or love her history, do not forgive her imperfections and seek to support her real goodness, and do not understand political or economic science, and that reason is this –

They want to be part of the inner circle. They want to be in the circle for exactly the same reason that there are circles of girls and boys in schools and circles of men and women in clubs and at work . They want to feel that they are in a special circle and you and most other people are outside it. They think that they are something because they are in the circle. They think the circle is superb.

To walk out of the circle is frightening and, almost worse, embarrassing. Everyone in the circle will dislike them. Those men who jovially put an arm around them will give them the cold shoulder. The man or woman who leaves the circle finds her very sense of self threatened, if not her job and her lucrative contacts.

Besides, everyone in the circle thinks the same thing. They must be right. The 'cascade of information effect' leads them all over the waterfall in the same boat.

To join in fellowship with others is a good thing, but because it is a human thing it has the possibility of being terrible, even monstrous. That is the inner circle of Europe with its circle of stars. It makes grown men and women want to be part of it – to enjoy its lavish pensions and perks, to feel specially precious, to secretly enjoy their snobbish elitism, and to simultaneously feel self-righteous because they are helping to establish a new world order of high-sounding platitudes. Never mind that it will be a disaster because it ignores political science.

At the Huntsman, there was talk of rebellion and the fate of tyrants. And at the Tap Blog:

My take on these events is equally to feel sickened. To describe my feelings for Gordon Brown as hatred would be to err on the cautious side. I despise him totally. His fate should be appropriate to the treachery he has committed against his own country.

The folks at Iwantareferendum.com are trying to get Britons to sign up for a mass rally.

But let’s end the blog review with the Spectator Blog, and their report of this incredible bit of comic irony:

This morning, Gordon Brown told the Commons liaison committee:

"You cannot make decisions and assume that people will simply follow them. Most decisions can only be successful if people are part of the process."

After that, he jetted off to sign the Treaty formerly known as the European constitution having denied people the role in the process that the Labour manifesto had promised them.

For my part, as an unrepentant anglophile, this brings to mind thoughts of the Gun Powder Plot and the papist traitor, Guy Fawkes whose execution for treason against the crown is celebrated as the national holiday of Britain. Alas, it is a holiday sorely in need of update. May I propose a Gordon Brown Day in its stead . . .

Read More...

Summary only...