Right now, I would argue, the marriage is quite one-sided. The Supreme Court is dictating how we treat detainees and lawyers apparently are vetoing combat decisions.
That marriage was made in the hell of early Soviet Russia. An unelected Politburo had dictatorial powers over just about anything it wanted, and Commissars were emplaced with military units in the Red Army to veto combat decisions by mere commanding officers.
Oh, the Soviet system was more advanced, and shot more of its own people in imposing its rule of ‘revolutionary legality’. But that’s the direction this overlawyered confusion of bureaucrats is heading.
Get the lawyers out of there. They are almost always political. They are probably thinking of getting into politics one day, and glorifying themselves as having been protectors of the poor defenseless freedom fighters.
If they are not thinking of a career in politics, they are probably conservative. (and probably would not be lawyers..) (A generality of course, but isn’t there some truth there?)
In defending the rights of the individual, a fundamental precept of the amalgam of the Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman tradition, the application of lethal force has always been a last resort to be applied in the gravest extreme. Though not perfectly applied in the 200 or so years of the existence of our republic, it has been the most perfect application of that concept in the history of mankind.
Indeed, when completing the necessary training for my concealed carry permit, I was introduced to the rudiments of the law regarding the use of lethal force. Concepts as duty to retreat, use of force only in the face of imminent danger to self or others near by, defense of property only within the context of the “castle doctrine.” The discomfort with war for the Western mind, as rightly should be, is that war is the furtherest departure from the rule of law with regards to an accused be accorded certain rights--in particular the presumption of innocence.
I think that the war on terror is nothing new with regards to the application of lethal force in the setting of our concept of rule of law. Islam is no different from the other totalitarian ideologies we’ve faced in our history. By their very nature, all of these totalitarian ideologies are such by their organic rejection of the rule of law.
The problem with our lawyers is that they do not appreciate the Judeo-Christian morality, the Greco-Roman tradition and the English Enlightenment that form the basis of their very profession. It is not that military strategy should rule the legal mind. But, it should be that Islam’s fundamental attack on the rule of law and the sacredness of individual rights that should cause the Western legal mind to recognize this threat and react in the strongest manner possible. And, in this case, Islam, from its inception brought lethal force to the table. It should be clear, whether lawyer or not, that this matter will only be settled on the field of battle.
Right, it’s really just a political question. The law of commerce and medicine, for instance, never gets snarled in arguments about whether there could be less commerce or less surgery and more legal arguing. It’s understood that law exists to assist commerce and medicine and that at some basic level, they could operate without ever referring to a legal professional.
The Law of War movement pretends war is avoidable, and tries to impose legal argument and procedure to supplant and obliterate military activity.
These are the lawyers who are so concerned about ‘the process’ they’ve either forgotten what ‘the process’ was supposed to protect, our country/civilization, or lack the confidence in the morality of protecting it.
Rule of Law is necessary to the operation of a civil society until it begins to protect the destroyers over the right of that society to exist.
I was a fighter pilot in WWII. I retired from the Air Force 31 years ago. To me, it is appalling that the military is letting the lawyers get anywhere near the fighters
"These are the lawyers who are so concerned about ‘the process’ they’ve either forgotten what ‘the process’ was supposed to protect, our country/civilization, or lack the confidence in the morality of protecting it.
Rule of Law is necessary to the operation of a civil society until it begins to protect the destroyers over the right of that society to exist.”
*****************
The lawsuit that is pending against John Yoo for what is in effect the “crime” of obeying a request from the DOJ for information re: the status of the United States’ commitments to laws dealing with torture both statutory and by treaty, goes precisely to the above issue.
What the above commentary is at the very least implying--and the above quote sums this point up--is that the campaign conducted by lawyers who are using U. S. law to guide/inhibit/incapacitate America’s defense against a terrorist enemy, is conducted in bad faith because it conceals a political agenda the goal of which runs all the way from attempting to cripple the Bush administration in revenge against the American populace for electing George Bush president not just once but twice, to aiding and abetting the enemies of this country.
As a non-lawyer who has spent the last eleven years researching how feminist lawyers have created an anti-male jurisprudence under the guise of enforcing anti-discrimination statutes and their enabling regulations, I am familiar with a law profession that is furious, enraged, and perfectly willing to use the law and its procedures in order to conduct civil war “by other means.” Some call it “lawfare,” but by any name it needs to be brought out into the open, scrutinized, discussed and dealt with.
This is not just a question of the relative balance b/t “law” and “strategy.” The people doing this sort of thing are not so stupid that they don’t know what they’re doing, something that some of the above posts seem to be implying. They know exactly what they are doing, and that is seeking to cripple the American war effort against terrorists.
Laura Kalman in her book “The Strange Career of Legal Liberalism” (Yale UP, 1996), describes a legal profession created by eastern elite law schools in the wake of the Warren court that is at once blinded by its sense of its own moral superiority and righteousness, and enraged that its liberal agenda is not embaced by the American populace, so much so that it can be said to hate America. That is strong language, but I know no other to describe the legal assault on this country’s defenses mounted this profession since 9/11. As Hilary Clinton said, questioned shortly after 9/11 whether she would take the pledge of allegiance to the flag, she would pledge allegiance “to the America that could be.” There it is in a nutshell--"my America, or no America.”
They know exactly what they are doing, and that is seeking to cripple the American war effort against terrorists.
Vol, I’d expand your comment to include a multitude of actions designed to cripple American efforts at anything, foreign or domestic. Post-modernist and marxist deconstruction, by legal means, of our institutions, laws, and traditions are their chickens.....coming home...to roost.
"That marriage was made in the hell of early Soviet Russia. An unelected Politburo had dictatorial powers over just about anything it wanted, and Commissars were emplaced with military units in the Red Army to veto combat decisions by mere commanding officers.”
I was a fighter pilot in WWII. I retired from the Air Force 31 years ago. To me, it is appalling that the military is letting the lawyers get anywhere near the fighters
You got THAT right, Colonel!
I had the honor o few years ago of meeting some of the survivors of the 1st Fighter Assn. (I think) - P-38 pilots out of North Africa. They held their reunion at the same hotel in Las Vegas where I was attending a week-long conference.
God bless them and YOU, Sir!
P-38 Ace Richard Lee Interview
From Jane’s WWII Fighters
Richard “Dick” Lee served in the Mediterranean Theater during WWII. In late June of 1943, he joined the 94th fighter squadron, based in Tunisia, North Africa. Lee left the squadron in May, 1944, after 51 missions of combat.
Lee was awarded: the Silver Star; Distinguished Flying Cross; the Air Medal with 12 Oak Leaf Clusters; and the Presidential Unit Citation with one Oak Leaf Cluster. Upon returning to the U.S., he was assigned as a P-38 flight instructor at Van Nuys Army Airbase in California. Lee is a lifetime member of the American Fighters Ace Association.
In September, 1945, Lee left the service and joined TWA. He retired after 36 years with the airline in July, 1981. As a pilot with TWA, he flew the following aircraft: the DC-3 and 4; Martin 202 and 404; 5 models of the Constellation; Boeing 707, 727 and the L1011.
Thank you, Rocketman. FYI, the 1st, 14th and 82nd Fighter Groups flew the P38 through North Africa and Italy. I was in the 82nd at the last area we all based near Foggia, Italy. I arrived in Italy in June 44 with 82 replacement pilots for the three groups. Seventeen of us made it home. Two of the 17 had been POW’s. I was one of the last to leave Italy primarily because I went into the Ukraine after being shot up over Romania. The time it took to get out and back to Italy and then the hospital time afterwards kept me there for 3 or 4 extra months.
Thanks for the info, “P-38”. Good job getting home!
If that “AZ” after your nick means Arizona, you may be familiar with the grief that Ace of Aces, Joe Foss, went through a few years ago at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. Mr. Foss was trying to get on a plane and the “TSA” screeners, of course, had never heard of him. He was wearing his CMH around his neck and they kept insisting that he take it off in order to go through the metal detector.
Needless to say, more than a few people were later embarrassed.
Godspeed.
.
You need to be logged in to reply. Please Login or Register
