Hearts, Minds and Defending the Assassination of Americans

There have been a couple of interesting speeches given by members of the government's legal establishment recently. The first, given on 22 February, was from the Pentagon's General Counsel, Mr. Jeh Johnson. He delivered his prepared speech to Yale Law school students. In it, he mentioned that, "My comments are general in nature about the U.S. military’s legal authority, and I do not comment on any operation in particular."

Johnson asks the question:

Should the legal assessment of targeting a single identifiable military objective be any different in 2012 than it was in 1943, when the U.S. Navy targeted and shot down over the Pacific the aircraft flying Admiral Yamamoto, the commander of the Japanese navy during World War Two, with the specific intent of killing him?

As an aside, I previously blogged about the Supreme Court Justice who, as a younger man, broke the code that led to the targeted killing of Admiral Yamamoto. While the justice did conclude it was legal, he admitted to being deeply troubled by it. The legality of this particular killing seems clear, since Yamamoto was a uniformed military member of a country that the American Congress had declared war against. Yamamoto was also not an American citizen, so the United States Constitution really doesn't weigh into that example from World War II. I think perhaps a more useful example Johnson could have used from that time period would have been the violation of the civil liberties of non-uniformed Japanese Americans who were suspected of treason, who did not present an imminent threat (as in the imminent kind of imminent threat), and who were not charged or tried where evidence could be presented. Unfortunately the Pentagon lawyer did not use that example in his speech.

Johnson, however, did take issue with the word "assassination" stating:

On occasion, I read or hear a commentator loosely refer to lethal force against a valid military objective with the pejorative term “assassination.” Like any American shaped by national events in 1963 and 1968, the term is to me one of the most repugnant in our vocabulary, and it should be rejected in this context. Under well-settled legal principles, lethal force against a valid military objective, in an armed conflict, is consistent with the law of war and does not, by definition, constitute an “assassination.”

I disagree with Johnson's diction. Regardless, he continues to discuss the role of American citizenship in the use of lethal force, stating:

Fifth: as I stated at the public meeting of the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security, belligerents who also happen to be U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives. Reiterating principles from Ex Parte Quirin in 1942, the Supreme Court in 2004, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, stated that “[a] citizen, no less than an alien, can be ‘part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners’ and ‘engaged in an armed conflict against the United States.’”

He goes on to say that, "I agree with Judge Bates of the federal district court in Washington, who ruled in 2010 that the judicial branch of government is simply not equipped to become involved in targeting decisions." Johnson footnotes the case brought by Anwar Al-Alawki's father to attempt to prevent the government from assassinating his American son.

What I find the most interesting, far more so than Johnson's quasi-defense of assassinating American citizens, is the fact that he doesn't come out and explicitly say that the government has in fact engaged in such action. After all, most Americans and the media take the view that the government has essentially admitted to doing exactly that, without explicitly owning up to the action.

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech to the students of the Northwestern law school, and according to the Associated Press (AP), gave a legal defense for the Al-Alawki assassination. According to the AP, "Holder's comments broke the administration's silence on the legal justifications for its decision to kill American-born al-Qaida operative Anwar al-Awlaki five months ago in Yemen." The article then follows that comment with, "... but he never explicitly acknowledged the administration responded by targeting the cleric for death."

The article mentions that, "The Obama administration has refused to release the Justice Department legal opinion on al-Awlaki's killing under the Freedom of Information Act and is in court opposing efforts to have it made public."

I have to wonder what silence the AP thinks is being broken here? I see nothing new. Most Americans believe their government has all but officially admitted that it has engaged in the assassination of at least one American citizen. The President gave a speech, widely viewed as a victory dance, when an American was assassinated by a drone. The Secretary of Defense admitted on 60 Minutes to assassinating an American citizen without due process. Now, top government lawyers are hitting up law schools and attempting to defend the assassination of Americans. Such public discussion only further bolsters the view that the government has time and again unofficially admitted to such action.

Ironically, I don't think any legal hearts or minds will be swayed that such action is legal, if the government still will not officially confirm or deny what most Americans and media overwhelmingly believe to be fact. A legal defense that seems to take a page from OJ Simpson's book, If I Did It, doesn't seem destined to be convincing. Perhaps the Yale and Northwestern law students felt differently.

I have previously blogged about my legal understanding of the issue here.

Captain Anonymous and Ron Paul

I've blogged about military personnel taking their political views into the public space several times now. This is perhaps the most interesting example. An Air Force officer and aviator puts on a Guy Fawkes mask, shares his views on foreign policy, fiscal policy, and then recommends a political candidate. He also makes it a point to mention that he took an oath to defend the Constitution, and says that the biggest threat to it today is domestic and not foreign. The Captain then apparently explains why he made the video on the Daily Paul website.

This deserves a much better discussion. I'm too tired to comment right now, so I'll just share the video at this point.

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 John 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.