Ranger Tabbed West Point Grad Faces Felony - Antonio Buehler

Antonio Buehler graduated from West Point, graduated from Army Ranger school, was then educated in combat operations overseas, and still later graduated from Stanford graduate school. He is now getting a PhD in false charges for exercising the Constitutional rights he fought for in Iraq. Not a bad resume for a middle school teacher in Austin, Texas.

It's understandable that he would have such an impressive resume given the incredible record of the family that raised him. His father was an enlisted infantry soldier in the Army with three tours in Vietnam. His mother was also military and served in Somalia. His brother, also a West Point graduate, did three tours in Iraq before graduating from a Harvard graduate program.

Antonio simply met the standard of an exceptional American family, and he has continued to do so after separating from the service. As the news broadcast above shows, on New Years Eve in Austin Texas he saw police arresting two females and he heard screaming from one of them, so he began taking pictures to secure evidence. One police officer then walked over and arrested him while Antonio screamed, "why are you touching me?!"

The officer later claimed that Antonio had spit on him, and charged him with a felony that carries with it years in prison if found guilty.

Fortunately, due to some very creative networking and internet leverage, Buehler was able to get the word out and he has had multiple witnesses come forward. Those witnesses - concerned citizens like him who were video taping the incident - have helped him overcome the Austin Police Department's refusal to release dash camera footage. Buehler's education, dedication to the Constitution, and resourcefulness remind me of former Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) pilot, John Robb, who blogs about such creative technology and tactics being used to fight against oppressive governments. Watching Buehler master some of the techniques Robb blogs about on his Global Guerillas site makes me think the military lost out when Antonio Buehler departed our ranks.

On the other hand, perhaps America lost nothing as this military officer continues to battles for freedom and defend the Constitution here at home, in hand to camera combat where liberty truly lives and dies. As a veteran with two lawsuits myself, one against a Texas police department, and another against the Department of Homeland Security, I truly appreciate veterans who honor their oaths even when they separate from military service. Such an example of American courage is rare and should be celebrated. And it is financially very costly for us little people - justice takes money as I have unfortunately learned.

For those interested in learning more about this great American, you can visit his Facebook Page and you can help defray the costs of his defense against a clearly fabricated felony by donating to his defense fund using PayPal. Keep in mind, a felony equates to never being able to own firearms, get a government job or assistance, and even means not being able to vote in certain states. Don't let a man suffer further degradation of his Constitutional rights simply because he exercised them. We all lose in that case.

Read, Think, Write...Even Blog

Interesting speech given by Admiral James G. Stavridis about the need for officers to read, think, and write in order to out-brain our enemies. The admiral says that we can no longer count on our superior values or resources to win wars, we have to out think them. And to do that, officers need to start reading, thinking, and writing more - even though there may be career risk in doing so.

Next, let me share some thoughts about writing. Because after you read, and think, I would argue you must write. Writing is easy for some and hard for others, but it is essential in communicating what we have learned, as well as allowing others to challenge our views and thus make them stronger. You will write plenty here for the faculty. But I would strongly encourage you to set a goal of publishing an article somewhere as a result of the work you have done here.

Share your ideas in print—a scholarly journal, a military magazine, a literary journal, or even a blog post. Get out there with your ideas. Nail your whispers to the wall. Conclude the trilogy of read, think, and write—and try to publish. Is there "career risk" in publishing? I suppose. It hasn't hurt me too badly over the years. What matters more is testing your ideas on the field of intellectual battle, so to speak.

Ron Paul Supporter in Uniform

The video above shows a soldier at the Iowa Caucus in uniform supporting Congressman Ron Paul. He has a tattoo of the Twin Towers on his neck and he provides his opinions to Dana Bash from CNN before the feed goes sour. Later that evening, Congressman Paul invites him onto the stage during a speech. Unfortunately, the soldier agrees to speak.

I'm certainly a fan of military members exercising their rights and expressing their opinions and attempting to strengthen America. God knows we have some serious problems and everybody needs to pitch in for this nation. While I certainly appreciate the passion this particular soldier shows for a man he believes to be a solution to the political problems of America, the soldier was wrong to express that passion while in uniform on a national stage. Not only is such uninformed political action prohibited by military regulation, such action also sends a dangerous message. It's a matter of symbols and messages.

The military uniform is a symbol of sterile and impartial service to elected officials. It's a symbol that garners respect, deserved or not, from civilians in airports and at restaurants. People see the uniform and automatically attribute service and sacrifice. The military uniform in other countries throughout history, however, has been seen as a symbol of oppression and occupation and the violent machinery of the state against the People. Consider the redcoats in the earliest days of America. Uniforms in some countries signify the backing of a politician or King. In some countries in South America, the uniform is a symbol of a rigged election backed by violence.

In America we believe in a civilian controlled military. Our military doesn't back any particular candidate, it doesn't stare down voters in the voting booth and it doesn't seek for any vested interest in the political process. Rather, it stands by impartially to serve the will of representatives elected by the citizenry.

This soldier sent a poor message when he took the stage to back Ron Paul. Imagine if he had been joined by a few of his comrades. Imagine if an entire company showed up to stand in formation behind Ron Paul. What if a candidate showed up to the caucus on top of a tank with a formation marching behind it? What message might that send?

I think this soldier did his candidate's campaign a disservice by not thinking a bit more about the role of the military in civil elections.

Drone Operators are Exhausted!

I was delighted to see that the Air Force conducted a study on the exhaustion level of its Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) operators, and that the USA Today reported on it. Of course if leadership was concerned enough to create such a study, why have they not been concerned enough to provide more manning to unmanned operations? This isn't even close to a new problem, and it's no state secret that there are not enough people doing those jobs.

Personally, I think there are many who were and are angered by Secretary Gates' grabbing the Air Force by the scruff of the neck and forcing them to give up their fun toys in exchange for supporting commanders on the ground. I think the Air Force never really took RPA seriously and these exhausted airman is just one symptom of that. Like pulling teeth, Secretary Gates said, and I don't think the tooth is yet dislodged.

At any rate, our remote operating men and women are tired and they give a great deal more than most in the air service. I hope leadership is listening to this study.

Da Dumpt...Da Dumpt...Sucks 2 B U

I'm only going to share this story, and my sincere hope that the investigation determines that the text on this photo was not sanctioned by the sixteen Air Force individuals who posed in this picture.

Air Force Disturbing Photo Concerning War Dead

America as a Military Battleground Like Iraq or Afghanistan

How is this going to affect the role of our military?

The Terrorists Have Won

Senator Rand Paul on Terrorism & The Constitution

What I find exceptionally interesting about this video is how it ties "left" and "right" together. The Senator is viewed as conservative to my knowledge. Yet his primary theme in this video is exactly the theme of the ACLU's Call to Courage report about the state of American civil liberty ten years after the attacks of 911. The ACLU is by most accounts a liberal organization. In his video, the Senator also mentions the outstanding dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case. What he doesn't mention is that Justice Scalia's dissent was joined by Justice Jean Paul Stevens. Justice Scalia is considered a very conservative justice, perhaps the most conservative. Justice Stevens, prior to his retirement from the High Court, was considered a very liberal Justice, perhaps the most liberal. Despite those labels, these two great guardians of America's Constitution, perhaps the last defense of America's soul, joined together hand in hand. I find such a union to be very patriotic, and very inspiring.

American Concentration Camps & Happy Turkeys

It's a crazy concept I know. What's more crazy is that concentration camps existed in America during the second world war. But I'm getting ahead of myself. First we really must talk about happy turkeys, or what has been called the parable of the happy turkey.

1. In the morning, a nice man comes for a visit.
2. He puts food in your bowl.
3. The food is fresh and tasty.
4. The food is always in plentiful supply.
5. At night there's a warm place to sleep.
6. The next day, the process is repeated. The nice man visits, he feeds you, and you sleep comfortably. It repeats day after day.
7. You think: everything is right with the world. How could anything possibly go wrong? In fact, the only thing I really have to fear is getting hit by lightening when it rains or the rare chance a fox might get under the wire and into the coop (which very seldom happens). The Turkeys that worry about this are pessimists.
8. One day, the nice man arrives.
9. The nice man grabs you.
10. He lays you across a stump, your neck exposed.
11. He raises an axe and cuts off your head.
    

There is a valuable yet sad saying that those who do not know history, are doomed to repeat it. Valuable because it's true. Sad because it's typically only said after tragedy. I suspect the happy turkey's concept of history consisted only of his own limited experience, I doubt he knew anything about Bainbridge Island. But again I'm getting ahead of myself. First we must talk about a man named Gordon Hirabayashi.

In 1943, Mr. Hirabayashi was a young American student at the University of Washington. He was ordered to report to a concentration camp; an American concentration camp that operated in America during the war. He maintained that the order was a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to due process. That amendment informs us that life, liberty, and property cannot be taken without due process of law. He was sent to prison. Forty years later, after the court reviewed information that the executive branch had previously failed to hand over, it was ruled that the government had acted illegally. Mr. Hirabayashi stated:

There was a time when I felt that the Constitution failed me... But with the reversal in the courts and in public statements from the government, I feel that our country has proven that the Constitution is worth upholding. The U.S. government admitted it made a mistake. A country that can do that is a strong country. I have more faith and allegiance to the Constitution than I ever had before.

Mr. Hirabyashi was of course terribly wrong on one point. The Constitution did not fail him. Those who swore to defend that Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic failed him.

The military soldiers who rounded up American men, women, and children during that war to send to internment camps, no doubt took comfort in the idea that what they did had to be legal because the order came from the very President himself. That order was no doubt vetted by the President’s team of clever lawyers. But such lawyers do not make or decide the law. Those military servicemen should have known, and more than likely did, that the order they were following was patently illegal.

The first Americans forced into internment camps were taken from the Bainbridge Island, just west of Seattle and the University of Washington campus Mr. Hirabayashi attended. Recently I visited a memorial museum on the island and there I met an older man who gave me a tour of the displays and explained the camps in great detail. Hours later I discovered that he was born in one of those camps. I learned still later that after he grew up, he served in the United States Air Force and was stationed at Holloman AFB. He told me that his grandfather was also imprisoned in a camp, and that his grandfather had worked his entire life to buy a hotel in Seattle. Once ordered to an internment camp, he had to sell his hotel quickly as he had only three days to give himself up. He sold it to a man with the mutual understanding that he could buy it back if he made it out of the camps. The owner refused to sell when that day came. The livelihood he had sacrificed for his entire adult life was stolen from him. His hard earned career was sacrificed. Why? Because those who he paid to defend his freedom--the very same men who swore before God that they would do so--didn't have the character to do what they promised.

I remembered this story from the island when I learned that the Japanese American Citizens League a few days ago put out a warning concerning a law now before Congress; a law that would allow military forces to yet again arrest American citizens, here in America, without charge or trial and to hold them indefinitely. On the President's say so alone, you could be imprisoned for life and the government wouldn't have to charge you with anything, and you would have no right to confront your accuser, or to have evidence presented, or to be convicted by a jury of your peers. This new law, drafted by democratic Senator Carl Levin and republican Senator John McCain, includes the following language in section 1031:

“Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force … includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons…. [including] [d]etention under the law of war without trial....”

The bill has already passed the House of Representatives with a vote of 322-96. It's now just waiting on the Senate to pass it. It's being looked at by the Senate right now, and may pass and become law at any moment.

UPDATE: Apparently the bill is being voted on right now in the Senate, and has a majority - three no votes are needed in order for there to be a filibuster.

UPDATE II: The bill passed both House and Senate. Text of the bill here.

There is quite the debate - some say the vague language of the bill does not extend to American citizens (which begs the question of why we need that portion of the bill), while others like U.S. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) who voted against the bill in the House, think differently. Amash says the act would indeed “permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President.” He notes that the language “does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” therefore it is misleading and outrageous.

As Mr. Hirabayashi, now a retired sociology professor, stated:

I would also say that if you believe in something, if you think the Constitution is a good one, and if you think the Constitution protects you, you better make sure that the Constitution is actively operating... and uh, in other words "constant vigilance". Otherwise, it's a scrap of paper. We had the Constitution to protect us in 1942. It didn't because the will of the people weren't behind it.

Below I have included video of a stage play titled, Dawn's Light: The Journey of Gordon Hirabayashi. The creators of the play describe their creation: "During WWII in Seattle, University of Washington student Gordon Hirabayashi agonizes over U.S. government orders to forcibly remove and imprison all people of Japanese ancestry on the West Coast. As he fights to reconcile his country's betrayal with his Constitutional beliefs, Gordon journeys toward a greater understanding of America's triumphs and failures." The key word in that description is betrayal.

More Big Blue Pink Slips for Officers?

The Air Force has taken some pretty interesting personnel measures as a result of the debt crisis. Those measures included an unpopular voluntary separation program, and denying continuation to majors twice passed over to the rank of lieutenant colonel (essentially booting officers out five years prior to retirement), and by numerous Reduction in Force boards for younger officers. The Air Force Chief of Staff, in the video above, mentions the challenges of reductions in force experienced after Vietnam.

In his book, Air Force Personnel Policy Development (1944-1974), Vance O. Michell describes the congressional budget defense cuts in 1969 and the effects they had on manpower. These effects included cutting the Air Force by four thousand officers by the middle of 1969. To accomplish this goal, captains twice passed over for major were not offered continuation, and early out options were offered. In 1970, budget constraints required another five thousand officers to be trimmed. This goal was sought by again allowing fewer officers to commission, and by offering early out programs. This wasn't enough. Mitchell writes:

Still short of its goal, the Air Force turned to the twice-deferrcd captains continued on active duty before that program ended, a group the service had carefully avoided. The officers selected for continuation during the first three years of the program (1963-1965) had received contracts sufficient to take most of them into the sanctuary zone (over eighteen years of service) that guaranteed retention until retirement at twenty years. Those selected in the last few years of the program (1966-1968) had no guaranteed contract beyond one year, but most accepting the offer probably believed that the war would last long enough for them to reach sanctuary. The announcement that all continued captains with less than eighteen years of service would be eliminated brought a hail of protests, as well as some lawsuits. Groups supportive of Reservists filed formal protests on their behalf. Nevertheless, James P. Goode, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, ruled in favor of the termination order, and about nine hundred continued officers were separated before the end of fiscal year 1970. Another three to four hundred in the sanctuary zone remained until retirement.

He continues to remark that for the next three years, voluntary programs allowed the program to reduce numbers without involuntary mechanisms. According to Mitchell, at the end of 1973 the Air Force was down to 114,000 officers, significantly less than the 138,000 officers it had in 1968.

Question for the peanut gallery: Do you think we're going to see the Air Force go even further beyond the personnel actions in 1970 by giving the boot to passed over majors who have been continued (offered and accepted continuation, with a corresponding date of separation)? Will the service kick out continued majors after fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen years of service?

I think it will.