Imagine a Vampire Squid in Camo

Interesting piece today in the New York Times opinion sections. Greg Smith has pulled chocks from Goldman Sachs after twelve years. He has decided the firm's culture has lost its way. He calls it toxic and destructive. His article reminds me of things I read and learned while working on my master's thesis. He says the culture has lost its integrity, and leadership role models peddling nonsense to its clients in order to make a profit at their expense. He projects that this role modeling will take the firm down a worse road in ten years, and he doesn't want to be a part of it anymore. He says a few individuals in leadership lost the culture on their watch.

How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.

I agree with Greg, an organization cannot survive if it loses sight of the interests of its clients, and replaces that interest with self interest and careerist ambition. If leadership loses its integrity and has no concern for doing what is right (accountability), and thinks ideas and principles are quaint "beliefs" that get in the way of the immediate goal, then a culture will become short sighted, and populated with inferiors who will ruin an organization like a swarm of locusts eating the hard work of superiors before them. There is a lesson to be learned here for all organizations, including those of us in the service.

Drone Strikes in Peoria?

I thought this discussion of Attorney General Holder's policy speech at Northwestern was interesting, particularly the point made by Judge Napolitano that the same policy could be used to justify drone strikes within the United States.

Post Civil War laws, ie Possee Comitatus, prohibit the military from using force in America in a law enforcement role. But law enforcement and military functions, as discussed in Holder's recent speech, are blending to meet, what the AG called, a unique threat that crossed all lines. There are already loopholes to Possee Comitatus that allow the military to operate domestically in cases related to the war on drugs. It's interesting to ponder whether something similar will be done in the case of the war on terror.

Amazing times we live in.

Are Truthers Nuts?

I saw this topic come up recently in a conversation between military officers, and just wanted to throw my limited two cents out there since I've never commented on the 911 Commission's report before, or some of the ideas and theories that surround it.

I'm glad that people question. Sincerely. I'm glad that they question everything.

That being said, I just don't get these Truther claims. I'm not saying Truthers are nuts, but I am saying that I find Truther claims hard to stomach. I'm uninformed and haven't spent any time combing through arguments one way or another. But, whatever its errors, like any investigative product, I just cannot imagine the 911 Commission's report didn't get the essentials correct.

I will not call Truthers crazy, and I like that they question and bring up important discussions that at the core are concerned with accountability and trust. We need those core items in our government, in our civil organizations, and in our personal daily lives. Accountability and trust are important, and the discussion illustrates how well we're doing here in America.

But I am no Truther. Not by a long shot.

That is all.

The Comedy of Assassinating Americans

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Holder's Rules on Assassinating Americans

The three part test that must be met, according to Attorney General Eric Holder, before the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen is legal are:

1. Must present an imminent threat of attack against the United States.

Would be interesting to know how the AG defines imminent.

2. Capture cannot be feasible.

This point is particularly interesting given the OBL raid and news reports like this one from CBS News:

Harrier jets flying from an amphibious carrier off the coast were ready to take a shot if the CIA drone missed. There was even an option for sending in Marine Ospreys with Special Operations Forces to collect any intelligence left after the strike, but that was never used. It was all part of a secret buildup which has occurred in and around Yemen as that country emerged as home to one of al Qaeda's most active branches.

3. Must be consistent with the laws of war.

Many groups are calling for the legal memo to be released by the administration, so that the public can get a better understanding of the legal reasoning that shows such a killing is consistent with the laws of war. At this point, the government is fighting the release of that legal reasoning in court.

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.