There is much to be said about the political divisiveness in Washington D.C.; however, I am sadden to see that the traditional use politics at the appropriate level with the appropriate weaponry to counter opposing opinion has gotten out of hand. Both elected representatives Republicans and Democrats and their constituents are misguided in their attempt to impose their view of the world upon everyone else, that the causalities in the massive verbal violence is the idea of compromise. Unfortunately, the zealous defenders of the Party line on either side are killing America while an apathetic public watches hopelessly, questioning why we've gotten here.
Actually there is a good reason why we all arrived here like this, and it does mainly in the American public's misunderstanding of the American political structure and how to properly address issues in the proper chain of escalation. Many Americans try to keep propelling many issues into the Federal spotlight when clearly it is not ready for such a debate at such a scale.
Not to say that healthcare reform shouldn't be a national issue, it's that people are looking for solutions at all the wrong places. Humanity is benevolently ignorant of several concepts of itself sometimes to think everyone on the same page of certain things that are "right" or "wrong". History has proven over and over that this is simply false and to think otherwise is outright silly. Simple conversation with over a dozen people can easily show you rather quickly that we maybe close on agreeing that things are an issue, but that's where it all ends.
Yes, of course of the bulk of the money and political backbone to enforce law lies in Federal endorsement and enforcement; however, we're a nation that is separate, yet equal. Universal anything is a more of a scientific discovery of arriving to eventual consensus, rather than dragged into a verbal fistfight of your position being morally right and/or theirs being wrong.
I've spoken quite vocally in sometime that the American public under-utilize the powers vested in the individual States to experiment for viable solutions for very polarized issues that clearly cannot be universally accepted by the entire population of the United States. Not to say that this is a perfect system, but one cannot deny that each region has different needs and perspective to their issues.
It would be best that Congress not get dragged into such divisive issues directly, instead by limiting it's exposure in whatever way we can until we can discover that consensus that will drive us together to form a national policy. But that's the problem with AHCA is that we know it's imperfect, yet we continue with it anyway. We're so quick skip the innovative process to discover what works or not, that really, we need to discover it through small groups of people, i.e. The States.
Our political mentality goes against everything we believe in maintaining people's ability to choose and not infringe on others. I know it's a two-way street that issues cannot be outright dismissed like the House Republicans are currently are doing right now, but let's not forget that the AHCA is a flawed system built onto another flawed system, something Democrats would like to forget about.
Elections and majorities do not mandate anything for any agenda regardless of political party or affiliation. If people really want the infighting to stop, they need to start pave the way solve the big issues at the local level first. You're maybe right in your cause; however, imposing big changes when clearly no one is happy about it is quite illogical. You have to take a step back and think to yourself, "Why do I do this when obviously it's not perfect and other solutions do exist? What makes my solution better than others? etc" Small steps lead to big victories. Striving for big victories can be self-inflecting and backfire if you fail to convince a resounding majority.
I would love to see both sides working together to fund various testbed ideas on hot button topics, but alas, all I see is people too focused to impose their ultimate solution to such big problems to the audience of 300+ million people. When you think of every hot button subject facing America, only a few could truly be ready to face the prime time test of national resolution.
Many of the social issues facing America can begun to be solved on lower levels of governance. It made prove a patchwork of ideas and counter-intuitive to what certain people want, but that's the beauty of America, we discover what works for us, instead of formulating something that maybe on the right track.
There is power in the local and state politics, but people are too blind to realize it. American history is filled with the idea of experimenting with discovering law to what best suited the local populace. While it made have sparked a Civil War and other negative events like Jim Crow laws, those were the only notable negative effects to untold positive outcomes. We have in the past, passed gun-control laws in the West through many town to control gun use. States and local laws have in the past paved the way to national inclusion. I have to admit, time is sometimes the only best remedy to soften hard hearts on certain issues and let subtle changes in public opinion slowly slide to the right way.
America is a trial-and-error experiment that finds it's eventual consensus to an eventual solution at the national level at some point. Nowadays, we don't even try to figure out what could work, we just formulate something that might work right at the national level when various experiments, if allowed to have formed at the local/state level, could pave the way to a national level law.
But until people realize that bringing all sorts of issues to Congress is actually counter-productive to the day-to-day business of Congress, we'll continue on this polarized road that leads to nothing good in the end. It leads to moments like these where each side will be tempted greatly to cripple one another agendas by crippling the very structure we've hopelessly placed the majority of our avenues to solve issues. But this should not, nor never be the case. We have the structure in place to escape a paralyzed federal government from time-to-time, we just have to utilize it, and utilize it correctly.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Overview of Invovlement in Syria
 |
| The Obvious First Strike: Tomahawk Cruise Missiles |
Everything in the region in the past few months has slowly put the pieces into place for a limited involvement against the Syrian government, but the question has been where and what equipment would be involved. Looking at what has been placed into the region in the past year and more importantly over the summer gives a glaring look at what places would be doing the most work.
Assets in the region:
United States
- Four US destroyers - USS Gravely, USS Ramage, USS Barry and USS Mahan - are in the eastern Mediterranean, equipped with approximately 360 cruise missiles.
- Airbases at Incirlik and Izmir in Turkey, and in Jordan. Official US fighter squadrons are only in Jordan at the moment.
- Two aircraft carriers - USS Nimitz and USS Harry S Truman are in the wider region.
- The Royal Navy's response force task group- which includes helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious and frigates HMS Montrose and HMS Westminster - is in the region on a previously-scheduled deployment.
- RAF Akrotiri airbase in Cyprus.
- A British Trafalgar class submarine equipped with cruise missiles.
- French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is currently in Toulon in the western Mediterranean.
- French Raffale and Mirage aircraft can also operate from Al-Dhahra airbase in the UAE.
 |
| US-British-French Assets in the Region |
People have said that we may do a no-fly zone; however, this option realistically is not plausible at the moment due to the lack of assets close by to begin sustained SEAD (supression of enemy air defenses) operations as readily. If this was possible, the USS Harry S Truman Carrier Strike Group would likely be in the Mediterranean Sea at the moment instead of lurking in the Gulf of Aden. However, dropping down to one carrier in the Persian Gulf is against US naval strategy just in case any conflict in the Middle East expands to involve more players. It would behoove to think then that a possible SEAD role would fall to NATO partners instead of a predominant US role in establishing a no-fly zone similar to what happened in Libya back in 2011.
It is interesting to see the various third-parties and regional nations, such as Turkey, place their response as the US heats up the call for action. The last 24 hours has seen the United Kingdom to be the official pusher for a UN resolution to start limited military action in Syria. At least how the resolution to the Security Council is worded to blunt the Russian and Chinese vetoes. This is the beginning of the 'coalition of the willing' from the West, which will begin heavy NATO involvement no less.
Meanwhile, "I think international law is clear on this. International law says that military action must be taken after a decision by the Security Council," Lakhdar Brahimi, UN-Arab League special envoy for Syria, told reporters in Geneva. This may paint the Arab League into a corner from not intervening.
While in Turkey, which has been one of the most vocal critics on the Syrian conflict, maybe forced not to intervene. Last year, Turkey’s Parliament passed a government motion for a one-year mandate authorizing the military to use ground troops for cross-border military operations into Syria that began in October 2012. However, opposition parties are lining up against the AKP to kill renewing that measure. “Their taking the Parliament’s will for granted is disrespect of the AKP [the Justice and Development Party] to the high Parliament and the AKP deputies,” Loğoğlu said in a written statement, warning that the AKP should not forget “the March 1, 2003, motion” experience.
Now, this is important because Turkey back in 2003 denied an expanded US ground presence for the Iraq War which strained US-Turkey relations for many years afterwards. There is no support from the Turkish government at large to see a US ground force in Turkey, which already limits what would be coming to Incirlik Air Base. Too much in Turkey hinges on working with NATO to open up Incirlik AB which in the foreseeable future just maintaining the Patriot missiles batteries and intelligence surveillance operations from this strategic air base in the region.
Now, what is more interesting is the deployment of US forces in Jordan over the summer. Back in June, 5000 US personnel were involved in an annual, Jordanian-led military exercise called Eager Lion. Involving 19 countries and some 8000 troops, Eager Lion as Maj. Gen. Awni al Adwan of the Jordanian army and chairman of the joint task force described, "Issues such as integrated air and missile defense and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to address current and future conflicts’ security issues." Afterwards, the US left behind a squadron of F-16s and a Patriot missile battery.
It's interesting to see that the forces in Jordan are in a more convenient strike position than any possible deployment of forces in Turkey, dealing with a more cooperative Jordanian government to keep options open and not be caught by surprise by Turkey not willing to expand the scope of Syrian intervention if the limited strikes failed. In the past year, it is interesting to note how the Israelis have been making occasional strikes into Syria which probably was with some sort of air-to-surface
 |
| F-16 launching a AGM-158 JSSM |
However, Jordan has said that their nation would not be used a platform for any operation against Syria, as stated by information minister Mohammad Moman has said today that the country will "not be a launching pad for any military action against Syria."
He said Jordan preferred a "diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis" and called on the international community to "consolidate efforts in that regard."
Regional politics and sensitivities of having another ground way have forced a limited hand back in Washington. If the UN resolution fails, it does indeed falls back to having a NATO backing to see an advancement of the limited strike option. The world's public is rightly skeptical on getting the evidence right on proving the Syrian government used chemical weapons. I for one should note that they should have pulled the 'humanitarian' card awhile go if they were going to play that move. The United States and the Obama Administration does not need another Iraq, which is why toppling Assad isn't possible and arming the Syrian rebels is difficult. This is a face saving measure and to send a message to everyone else that possesses chemical weapons, "Don't even think about using them, period... or get fucked."
As the UN Security Meets, State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf said, "We see no avenue forward, given continued Russian opposition, to any meaningful council action on Syria." Even adding further insult to injury towards Russia, she continued, "Today we've heard nothing different from the Russians in the meeting than we've heard for months and even years."
Meanwhile, the White House is spilling quite a few details of what the military strike option as White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney fielded questions amongst a frenzied White House press.
"Having said that, we’re primarily considering two sets of Tomahawk missile strikes (between 8 and 11) launched by the USS Mahan and the USS Gravely against a set of military bases in the Syrian desert, including but not limited to… [ruffles some papers]… and let me see if I can get these names right: the Marj Ruhayyil Military Airbase, Al-Nayrab Military Airbase, the Suwayda Army Base, the Marj al-Sultan Military Heliport… Wait, no scratch that. My bad. The heliport is not under consideration. I mean, it may or may not be under consideration. Let’s see, where were we? Oh, also the Shayrat Military Airbase and the Khalkh… you know what, I’m not even going to try to pronounce that one. We’ve put together a list of the potential targets that you can pick up on your way out, along with geographical coordinates and correct spelling, and so on, just to facilitate things."
As the reporters grabbed for details, Carney gave more details... I'm not sure how this is a productive military planning, but it reveals the huge measure to the Syrian government the heads ups...
"Again, we’re not in the business of revealing sensitive information, Judy. All I can tell you is that we may or may not strike the potential targets during the hours of 21:00 and 23:00 on Friday August 30th, and again between 15:00 and 17:00 on Saturday the 31st. Please note that we’re talking about the Damascus time zone, which is GMT +2. I know that can be confusing. Anyway, after the strikes which may or may not take place between those hours, we may or may not launch a surprise follow-up attack again the following week on Monday morning between 10:30-11:00 am, depending on the situation on the ground."
In return, John McCain on "Fox and Friends" commented the leaks, "But all of these leaks, when strikes are going to take place, where, what’s going to be used, if I were Bashar Assad, I think I would declare tomorrow a snow day and keep everybody from work. This is crazy. These leaks are just crazy.”
In Syria, the public took to heart of the leaks as a Reuters reported stated in Damascus, "At grocery stores, shoppers loaded up on bread, dried goods and canned foods, fearing they may face shortages if a strike hits the city. The items most in demand were batteries and water. Nearby, a nurse idled in a clinic - empty as nearly no one showed up for their appointments on Wednesday - and raised the question on the mind of so many locals."
At the end of the day, the United Nations will just sit and watch the firework show erupt in the Middle East once again as the United States does what it wants to do in a conflict that it is showing up to a quite a bit late. For being diplomatic... the Obama Administration has politely told Russia to "Fuck off." as seen what is coming from the State Department. It will definitely be an interesting next week for sure. The details are plain to see on what is going to happen, and even when it is happening. This is a message sending missile strike and nothing more, land-based aircraft strikes are hampered by various regional politics in neighboring countries where there is a US presence, thus the sea-based Tomahawk cruise missile system strikes happening in the coming days.
Related news links:
BBC - Syria crisis: Where key countries stand.
BBC - Gauging Russia's reaction to a Syrian Strike
The Guardian - Israeli Intelligence Intercepts Syrian regime talk about chemical attack
Reuters - Obama's Politcal Cost on Syrian Action
Reuters - US Prepares to Strike, Syria prepares.
Hurriyet Daily News - Turkish Government Alone in Intervention Motion
Hurriyet Daily News - Turkey Plans Concrete Goals on Syria
Politico - John McCain Appalled by Syrian Operation Leaks
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Why Politics is a Petty Thing
I've always questioned why someone or groups of people should be politically active. I know I'm politically active, but like everything in life, it's really meaningless. There is only a very few things in the political realm that has survived a decent period of time. People's interpretation is always askew in their priorities, thinking that a group of representatives can be benevolent enough to represent everyone else. By far this is a farce, for too many people have individualistic natures, even though common ground can be made for many things; however, people are horrible flip-floppers like Mitt Romney.
Life is too short to be overly concerned with politics, and the more radical viewpoints shove out the moderate voices which is the majority. I'm baffled daily that people trust that what happens in various capital's around the world is really ground-breaking work, but it's really not. Government is by extension a reflection of humanity's indecisiveness, assertiveness in it's own knowledge and in-admittance to the deep imperfections in every individual on this blue planet. We try to fix things in which are impossible due to our inherent unsavory natures. We are bringing about an objectively fair world in a world that by it's nature is and forever will be unfair.
It is admirably to fight the good fight to right the wrongs of the world, but it's a fruitless battle of the ages in which man has yet to win, and probably never win. The sun rises and sets on history everyday and mankind keeps moving on with the latest evolution of politically correct politics in which is rooted in shallow opinion.
Good people stay out of politics for good reasons, mainly because it's petty and you can live your life to one's content for the most part if you choose to do so. Sure, there are those 'white knights' out there seeking appropriate justice and equality for all, but so few are remembered... yet being remembered is not important. It is just politics is petty since it is, generally speaking, is laying out an opinion of what is perceived to be right or wrong. It changes with the tides of history, but I suppose I have better things to say what is right or wrong to make it a constant line in the sand and forcefully shouting it out to the rest of the world that this is the way it is and it won't change. It may not change for me, but I feel I'm wasting my time swaying people to my opinion anyhow. So instead, I just go out living, doing what I need to do to live life to the fullest, because time can be better spent on other things then arguing endlessly on opinion.
Life is too short to be overly concerned with politics, and the more radical viewpoints shove out the moderate voices which is the majority. I'm baffled daily that people trust that what happens in various capital's around the world is really ground-breaking work, but it's really not. Government is by extension a reflection of humanity's indecisiveness, assertiveness in it's own knowledge and in-admittance to the deep imperfections in every individual on this blue planet. We try to fix things in which are impossible due to our inherent unsavory natures. We are bringing about an objectively fair world in a world that by it's nature is and forever will be unfair.
It is admirably to fight the good fight to right the wrongs of the world, but it's a fruitless battle of the ages in which man has yet to win, and probably never win. The sun rises and sets on history everyday and mankind keeps moving on with the latest evolution of politically correct politics in which is rooted in shallow opinion.
Good people stay out of politics for good reasons, mainly because it's petty and you can live your life to one's content for the most part if you choose to do so. Sure, there are those 'white knights' out there seeking appropriate justice and equality for all, but so few are remembered... yet being remembered is not important. It is just politics is petty since it is, generally speaking, is laying out an opinion of what is perceived to be right or wrong. It changes with the tides of history, but I suppose I have better things to say what is right or wrong to make it a constant line in the sand and forcefully shouting it out to the rest of the world that this is the way it is and it won't change. It may not change for me, but I feel I'm wasting my time swaying people to my opinion anyhow. So instead, I just go out living, doing what I need to do to live life to the fullest, because time can be better spent on other things then arguing endlessly on opinion.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Knowing me: Objective Judging
Sometime ago when I got to Incirlik Air Base, I took one of those personality tests that shows whatever traits I predominantly show. Over the years, the top traits have rarely shifted; however, each attribute exhibits various rates of growth. From this test, my top ten traits were
I am truly dismayed by the people who dismiss me at first glance because they know I'm actively judging them, but my judgement is for assessment of your character and principles. Every new thing that you display to me molds my judgement of you to help me understand you better. It's those people that get my cold stare because they were already closed-minded in the first place, casting the first stone before I could even begin.
I would argue that I display more of my second trait of perspective more, because I understand myself and when I judge, I'm just critical of myself as the people I'm assessing. I know that in the end, the judging, critical thinking, etc trait is the predominant trait, because I think all the time. However, with wisdom, I can dis spell the terrible effects of negative judgment and come out knowing that I use all ten traits to frame judgement end game.
This is how I exhibit judgement, as objectively as a I can everyday. I know I come off as a cold-hearted analysis, but those that stick around that can accept the initial foray of an analysis of yourself then can then see the 'whole me'. I know plenty of people who gotten the same vibe and came out thinking I had the greatest sense of humor ever.
The worse thing is initial judgement, and I've seen people rush faster than I do nearly everyday. I know people tell me about other people and how they are and what I should watch for, but in the end, I reserve judgment with an open mind. That is the difference between objective judges like myself and those that lack the fortitude of making judgement on knowing people.
- Judgment, critical thinking, and open-mindedness
- Perspective (wisdom)
- Gratitude
- Curiosity and interest in the world
- Hope, optimism, and future-mindedness
- Love of learning
- Honesty, authenticity, and genuineness
- Appreciation of beauty and excellence
- Humor and playfulness
- Kindness and generosity
I am truly dismayed by the people who dismiss me at first glance because they know I'm actively judging them, but my judgement is for assessment of your character and principles. Every new thing that you display to me molds my judgement of you to help me understand you better. It's those people that get my cold stare because they were already closed-minded in the first place, casting the first stone before I could even begin.
I would argue that I display more of my second trait of perspective more, because I understand myself and when I judge, I'm just critical of myself as the people I'm assessing. I know that in the end, the judging, critical thinking, etc trait is the predominant trait, because I think all the time. However, with wisdom, I can dis spell the terrible effects of negative judgment and come out knowing that I use all ten traits to frame judgement end game.
This is how I exhibit judgement, as objectively as a I can everyday. I know I come off as a cold-hearted analysis, but those that stick around that can accept the initial foray of an analysis of yourself then can then see the 'whole me'. I know plenty of people who gotten the same vibe and came out thinking I had the greatest sense of humor ever.
The worse thing is initial judgement, and I've seen people rush faster than I do nearly everyday. I know people tell me about other people and how they are and what I should watch for, but in the end, I reserve judgment with an open mind. That is the difference between objective judges like myself and those that lack the fortitude of making judgement on knowing people.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Acknowledging Lifelong Learning
Whenever someone I'm getting acquainted with talks with me, one of the subjects of 'getting know this new guy Roger' breaches the subject of future life planning and/or career planning. These folks quickly realize that I exhibit both specific short-term goals and general road map of long-term goals. After more discussion, they find that some of the goals, mainly the longer term ones can shift in time frame, but they never leave my focus. I explain that I see all these possible paths that I could take, but which one takes it's time to reveal itself, sometimes purposely and others accidentally.
I suppose the biggest question now getting to the operational side of the Air Force has been arguably, "Are you making this a career?" I consider this time period still too early to call really, it really depends after getting to Japan when one logically thinks about it if they were in my situation. Until then I've explained that CDCs and upgrade training is the most important focal point in life at the moment, followed by enjoying Turkey and the region I'm in at the fullest.
I expound upon this thought to people that life has shown me quite a few lessons that I've heeded before the military and I always keep them in hindsight while I'm here.
1) The Air Force is just another phase of my finite life.
2) Whenever you're placed in limbo between where you are and where you want to be, be proactive in everything you do.
3) Every event whether good or bad is something to learn from, just don't let bad decisions ruin you're life.
4) History tends to repeat itself, it's best to self-evaluate your past actions constantly to avoid future pitfalls.
5) Five.. no, six constants in life: God, change, choice, principles, learning, and character.
6) The 'drive' of great expectations of doing great things. Although 'great things' are vague, many small things tend to snowball either positively or negatively, and it may not accumulate into what we call big things.
I've found out that life is a constant lesson in learning about everything. This definitely excludes the traditional sense of learning, but those 'life lessons' can be found about everyday and it's important to acknowledge them when they occur. I think many people reach an 'apex' in learning and stop, thinking they mastered everything.
Unfortunately, those people are so woefully wrong and are missing important things in life. Without risk and an open mind, many people are resigned to a fate of boredom. This is a tragic consequence that life does not let one forget lightly. Every new interaction with someone and/or something else is a start of a new lesson in life's education, it's just how you tend to approach it.
In conclusion, don't stop learning, not because you think you've passed college or reached your 'dream' career, because life does not let you stop learning and the faster you get that lesson, the better your life can be.
I suppose the biggest question now getting to the operational side of the Air Force has been arguably, "Are you making this a career?" I consider this time period still too early to call really, it really depends after getting to Japan when one logically thinks about it if they were in my situation. Until then I've explained that CDCs and upgrade training is the most important focal point in life at the moment, followed by enjoying Turkey and the region I'm in at the fullest.
I expound upon this thought to people that life has shown me quite a few lessons that I've heeded before the military and I always keep them in hindsight while I'm here.
1) The Air Force is just another phase of my finite life.
2) Whenever you're placed in limbo between where you are and where you want to be, be proactive in everything you do.
3) Every event whether good or bad is something to learn from, just don't let bad decisions ruin you're life.
4) History tends to repeat itself, it's best to self-evaluate your past actions constantly to avoid future pitfalls.
5) Five.. no, six constants in life: God, change, choice, principles, learning, and character.
6) The 'drive' of great expectations of doing great things. Although 'great things' are vague, many small things tend to snowball either positively or negatively, and it may not accumulate into what we call big things.
I've found out that life is a constant lesson in learning about everything. This definitely excludes the traditional sense of learning, but those 'life lessons' can be found about everyday and it's important to acknowledge them when they occur. I think many people reach an 'apex' in learning and stop, thinking they mastered everything.
Unfortunately, those people are so woefully wrong and are missing important things in life. Without risk and an open mind, many people are resigned to a fate of boredom. This is a tragic consequence that life does not let one forget lightly. Every new interaction with someone and/or something else is a start of a new lesson in life's education, it's just how you tend to approach it.
In conclusion, don't stop learning, not because you think you've passed college or reached your 'dream' career, because life does not let you stop learning and the faster you get that lesson, the better your life can be.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Humanity's Thought Process is Primitive
You know what word I greatly dislike due to it's abuse, 'progressive'. The thought or mindset of 'being progressive' is a sham to me, it's like the greatest logic trap made by mankind. I enter this trap a lot and so do a lot of other people from day to day.
People would reply to my mocking of progressivism as "Why Roger, humanity has benefited from progressive thought." I would reply that yes, a great deal of advancement in humanity has been done by progressive thinkers, but think about the context of thought. A lot of humanity's advancement comes from the worst side of humanity in the realm of war and destruction.
I'm a skeptic of humanity's progression. We're so prone to greed, envy, power, etc. that some generous byproduct is that sometimes benefit to humanity in the long run. We're really not a very progressive species when it comes to serious barriers on race, sex, religion, law, politics, nationalities. Think about the global state of progressivism, it's really sad really.
In reality, we fool ourselves by our 'technological, economic, and medical advancement', patting our back saying, "We're doing good." No, that's tomfoolery that begets that smug feeling of self-satisfaction. We're so focused on the our own troubles to really lose focus that humanity's crawl to 'self-improvement' is really silly. I mean, in the 100+ years since the American Civil War, race is really still an issue. Our moment of self-smugness was with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
People of different races seem to need that "Woe is me" attitude that inhibits the improvement from the past with silly things like 'Black History Month' or 'Women's History Month'. Burying the hatchet on such issues requires both sides to stop the "I'm different, and you hurt my feelings, so I need this to feel better, so know about now."
No offense to blacks or women, it's just some very obvious examples in society today. I know the injustices, but I don't need everyone to read about Thai history to respect my differences. All I ask for is that unspoken code of respect from one fellow man to another. I really feel that's a 'tit-for-tat' tactic to 'understand me' that doesn't really need to be used.
Nearly everyone craves to have a decent life with enough material wealth to enjoy it, although there are some serious exceptions to that generalization, but for the most part, most of humanity can be entered into that thought school.
Over 100 years ago, that man made that statement. It's not just American politics, but one can say about politics in general. What has changed here? Nothing really, except we have more possibility to be misinformed than ever before. The last decade has really shown progressive thought in politics is a great farce. We're entering full-blown class warfare on the rich and on the bastions of capitalism.
Talking about capitalism, people always talk about socialism vs capitalism and what is better. I usually reply that neither is that great really, since the flaws in the system is rooted by the inherent nature of humanity's flaws to envy thy neighbor and be greedy. People can't realize that any system cannot defeat the very basic constructs of humanity's flaws, but we sure try to inhibit the worst offenders.
In conclusion, I'm stating that 'progressivism' in society should be taken with serious grains of salt and people need to heed the right perspective when trying to improve the well-being of humanity. Hopefully, somebody could stop the seemingly inherent nature of self-destruction in societies.
People would reply to my mocking of progressivism as "Why Roger, humanity has benefited from progressive thought." I would reply that yes, a great deal of advancement in humanity has been done by progressive thinkers, but think about the context of thought. A lot of humanity's advancement comes from the worst side of humanity in the realm of war and destruction.
I'm a skeptic of humanity's progression. We're so prone to greed, envy, power, etc. that some generous byproduct is that sometimes benefit to humanity in the long run. We're really not a very progressive species when it comes to serious barriers on race, sex, religion, law, politics, nationalities. Think about the global state of progressivism, it's really sad really.
In reality, we fool ourselves by our 'technological, economic, and medical advancement', patting our back saying, "We're doing good." No, that's tomfoolery that begets that smug feeling of self-satisfaction. We're so focused on the our own troubles to really lose focus that humanity's crawl to 'self-improvement' is really silly. I mean, in the 100+ years since the American Civil War, race is really still an issue. Our moment of self-smugness was with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
People of different races seem to need that "Woe is me" attitude that inhibits the improvement from the past with silly things like 'Black History Month' or 'Women's History Month'. Burying the hatchet on such issues requires both sides to stop the "I'm different, and you hurt my feelings, so I need this to feel better, so know about now."
No offense to blacks or women, it's just some very obvious examples in society today. I know the injustices, but I don't need everyone to read about Thai history to respect my differences. All I ask for is that unspoken code of respect from one fellow man to another. I really feel that's a 'tit-for-tat' tactic to 'understand me' that doesn't really need to be used.
Nearly everyone craves to have a decent life with enough material wealth to enjoy it, although there are some serious exceptions to that generalization, but for the most part, most of humanity can be entered into that thought school.
A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues.
- Theodore Roosevelt
Over 100 years ago, that man made that statement. It's not just American politics, but one can say about politics in general. What has changed here? Nothing really, except we have more possibility to be misinformed than ever before. The last decade has really shown progressive thought in politics is a great farce. We're entering full-blown class warfare on the rich and on the bastions of capitalism.
Talking about capitalism, people always talk about socialism vs capitalism and what is better. I usually reply that neither is that great really, since the flaws in the system is rooted by the inherent nature of humanity's flaws to envy thy neighbor and be greedy. People can't realize that any system cannot defeat the very basic constructs of humanity's flaws, but we sure try to inhibit the worst offenders.
In conclusion, I'm stating that 'progressivism' in society should be taken with serious grains of salt and people need to heed the right perspective when trying to improve the well-being of humanity. Hopefully, somebody could stop the seemingly inherent nature of self-destruction in societies.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The U.S. Air Force: The Next Stage of Life
Indeed people, the next stage of my life is to be with the US Air Force. I have finalized my paperwork with them with a six-year contract with them on January 20, 2012. I was suppose to sign earlier that week, but the epic snowstorm of 2012 postponed that until Friday when the weather improved considerably for venture out on the roads. The signing is a milestone in several months of planning and preparing has formalized into a set date of departure and a job for the years ahead.
I will be heading to Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas on April 17th, about one month after completion of Winter Quarter at Everett CC. I have a computer technician job lined up for my time there. In the meantime, I plan to continue my work towards computer science for programming. I've realized that I don't have a good plan to finance the second half of college learning at the current pace without going into debt, which I have ruled out. I have to be honest with myself, I can never have a full-time job while doing school, and retail definitely does not cut it.
I do not consider going to college with student loans to be a positive thing. While uncertainty to some degree exists in the job market still, carrying such a large amount of debt due to education is stupid and unwise. While I don't say that having debt is bad in general, but having too much or allocating too much to one place is very unwise in life planning. Simply, using the service as a means to keep out of debt and reduce expenditures is a decent move in my opinion.
Honestly, I am excited by the prospect of this next stage of life. I know I need to experience life outside of this state and more of getting the adventurous side of me out of the system. There are some reservations though with the obvious talk of war with Iran and cutbacks on national defense. I mean they are concerns in the horizon, but we'll see when the time does come. I hope that it may not occur, but such events are outside of anyone's control.
Until next time, stay classy.
I will be heading to Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas on April 17th, about one month after completion of Winter Quarter at Everett CC. I have a computer technician job lined up for my time there. In the meantime, I plan to continue my work towards computer science for programming. I've realized that I don't have a good plan to finance the second half of college learning at the current pace without going into debt, which I have ruled out. I have to be honest with myself, I can never have a full-time job while doing school, and retail definitely does not cut it.
I do not consider going to college with student loans to be a positive thing. While uncertainty to some degree exists in the job market still, carrying such a large amount of debt due to education is stupid and unwise. While I don't say that having debt is bad in general, but having too much or allocating too much to one place is very unwise in life planning. Simply, using the service as a means to keep out of debt and reduce expenditures is a decent move in my opinion.
Honestly, I am excited by the prospect of this next stage of life. I know I need to experience life outside of this state and more of getting the adventurous side of me out of the system. There are some reservations though with the obvious talk of war with Iran and cutbacks on national defense. I mean they are concerns in the horizon, but we'll see when the time does come. I hope that it may not occur, but such events are outside of anyone's control.
Until next time, stay classy.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Goodbye 2011... I am Prepared for the Next Stage of Life
22 years, I've lived. It's a lot and at the same time, it's not a lot. It could be a lot if my life was cut short all too early. This year had many twists and turns... and towards the end, at least for myself I am being ushered into a new stage of life. Bear in mind I desire to be that "normal" person, but I'm long realized that will never happen. Even then, "normal" is relative as a state of mind as much as people try to determine success.
Many people are content with being normal... or subordinate to the position in life they've been given. Some people are given a change to extraordinary, to do things to be remembered or least be content with knowing they did the right thing. Somehow through all these years, I've gotten some of both. Indeed as I reflect on the year, I wish I could be the better man. I could say I'm probably the most boring or simple man somebody has met. This 21st year of life has been met with, "So why don't you go out more often?" or "Why still single?" or "Do you have any fun?" The thing is... I don't have an answer to any of them.
I confuse myself as a myriad of characters of me. Some days, I feel intelligence, others, I'm horrible at school. I look organized, but sloppy time management. Wishing to somewhat social, content to type my thoughts alone on a computer. See so much potential, but wasting away in jobs that go nowhere. Look happy and smile, but just trying get through the day. I know these are the same old problems I've faced in past years and it comes and goes.
I've never been a man of first impressions really well. People who've known me long enough know this. I know I come off as a cold, calculated cynic, while my version of a sense of humor takes awhile. I know I don't socialize with other people much or the topics I talk about are not typical of a 22 year old. I would rather be dealing with Minecraft or Skyrim than with people sometimes.
The funny thing is that I start 2012 with a challenge to myself to go well beyond my comfort zones. I decided to set myself with college classes dealing with Physics, Chemistry and Math. I mean, I'll be dealing with numbers for the next three months, I should come out much smarter, right? I know I've flipped-flopped in trying to see what I'm interested in life... then I realized I can't be satisfied with this world and what it offers. I know it's God, this void I keep seeing.
I am interested in the acquisition of knowledge, I know I'll be learning for most of my life now. I yearn for every kernel of it. Computer Science, interested... Engineering, interested... Political Science, interested... Economics, interested... History, interested... I have a hard time pinpointing what I enjoy the most, actually I enjoy all of them equally, although I don't have time for all. This problem has dogged me for years. "What do you enjoy the most Roger?" I mutter, "All of it... err, Engineering."
It has been interesting 2011 for all the events that happened. We finally got Bin Laden and the Japanese tsunami are the few things etched into my mind. I think I finally stopped caring about how fucked the global economic system is (yeah, it's horrible secretly, I know!). Plus most importantly folks, we got football this season instead of a non-season of moody people not knowing how to get loose on Sunday.
I think the precious thing of the year was two weddings I got to attend, although one was much sooner than I expected. To Naomi Sunderland and Staci Howard, I cannot express how much those wedding were amazing. Amazing, yeah. Plus, the congratulations and the honor to attend. Then wearing the suit... always cool. You really do not know how much I enjoy wearing a suit... if I had multiple suits, I would like lounge in them. But alas, I must be content with my black suit.
Now those not totally given my blessing of knowing what I plan all the time (I know, I'm a secretive person). You are wondering what the next stage of life I talk about. Well, first off, it's definitely not about graduating college, even community college. This stage I've long avoided to hopefully complete school but I see my time has expired in this path of school for now temporarily.
The 2012 year begins the my stage involving the United States Air Force. I've told a very select few along with the family knowing it. I have joined officially awaiting a job placement. Those wondering about timeline to basic training is probably June 2012, enough time to keep doing school. I finally have felt content with this decision, know full well what to expect. I knew how to finance community college, but when it became time to transfer, I didn't know how to. Plus, working retail sucks and the jeep is a well-known vehicle on borrowed time.
Anyhow, yeah. This is exciting to exit civilian life and join the Chair Force (yeah, let's roll in the jokes). I've learned that success is relative to being fully content in life. I'm just hoping to leave the world of young adult immaturity behind, I know I need my dose of reforging character.
So yeah, Bring it 2012!
Many people are content with being normal... or subordinate to the position in life they've been given. Some people are given a change to extraordinary, to do things to be remembered or least be content with knowing they did the right thing. Somehow through all these years, I've gotten some of both. Indeed as I reflect on the year, I wish I could be the better man. I could say I'm probably the most boring or simple man somebody has met. This 21st year of life has been met with, "So why don't you go out more often?" or "Why still single?" or "Do you have any fun?" The thing is... I don't have an answer to any of them.
I confuse myself as a myriad of characters of me. Some days, I feel intelligence, others, I'm horrible at school. I look organized, but sloppy time management. Wishing to somewhat social, content to type my thoughts alone on a computer. See so much potential, but wasting away in jobs that go nowhere. Look happy and smile, but just trying get through the day. I know these are the same old problems I've faced in past years and it comes and goes.
I've never been a man of first impressions really well. People who've known me long enough know this. I know I come off as a cold, calculated cynic, while my version of a sense of humor takes awhile. I know I don't socialize with other people much or the topics I talk about are not typical of a 22 year old. I would rather be dealing with Minecraft or Skyrim than with people sometimes.
The funny thing is that I start 2012 with a challenge to myself to go well beyond my comfort zones. I decided to set myself with college classes dealing with Physics, Chemistry and Math. I mean, I'll be dealing with numbers for the next three months, I should come out much smarter, right? I know I've flipped-flopped in trying to see what I'm interested in life... then I realized I can't be satisfied with this world and what it offers. I know it's God, this void I keep seeing.
I am interested in the acquisition of knowledge, I know I'll be learning for most of my life now. I yearn for every kernel of it. Computer Science, interested... Engineering, interested... Political Science, interested... Economics, interested... History, interested... I have a hard time pinpointing what I enjoy the most, actually I enjoy all of them equally, although I don't have time for all. This problem has dogged me for years. "What do you enjoy the most Roger?" I mutter, "All of it... err, Engineering."
It has been interesting 2011 for all the events that happened. We finally got Bin Laden and the Japanese tsunami are the few things etched into my mind. I think I finally stopped caring about how fucked the global economic system is (yeah, it's horrible secretly, I know!). Plus most importantly folks, we got football this season instead of a non-season of moody people not knowing how to get loose on Sunday.
I think the precious thing of the year was two weddings I got to attend, although one was much sooner than I expected. To Naomi Sunderland and Staci Howard, I cannot express how much those wedding were amazing. Amazing, yeah. Plus, the congratulations and the honor to attend. Then wearing the suit... always cool. You really do not know how much I enjoy wearing a suit... if I had multiple suits, I would like lounge in them. But alas, I must be content with my black suit.
Now those not totally given my blessing of knowing what I plan all the time (I know, I'm a secretive person). You are wondering what the next stage of life I talk about. Well, first off, it's definitely not about graduating college, even community college. This stage I've long avoided to hopefully complete school but I see my time has expired in this path of school for now temporarily.
The 2012 year begins the my stage involving the United States Air Force. I've told a very select few along with the family knowing it. I have joined officially awaiting a job placement. Those wondering about timeline to basic training is probably June 2012, enough time to keep doing school. I finally have felt content with this decision, know full well what to expect. I knew how to finance community college, but when it became time to transfer, I didn't know how to. Plus, working retail sucks and the jeep is a well-known vehicle on borrowed time.
Anyhow, yeah. This is exciting to exit civilian life and join the Chair Force (yeah, let's roll in the jokes). I've learned that success is relative to being fully content in life. I'm just hoping to leave the world of young adult immaturity behind, I know I need my dose of reforging character.
So yeah, Bring it 2012!
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Turbo Man Dolls and Chirstmas
Disclaimer: This post (as well as the blog in general) in particular is of my opinion only and nobody else's including my employers.
The retail industry is the only industry that I've known and worked for in my 22 years of existence. Sure, I've shadowed and seen other industries, but never the first hand experience. Those that know me, I've experienced the "big box" retail operations versus smaller retailers and there are differences in terms of customer service focus, scope, and communication. At the end of the day though, we're just serving customers.
By working in this industry, it seems like watching "Jingle All the Way" with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sinbad as the main character fighting for the "must have" toy of the Christmas season, the Turbo Man doll. It's much like the Tickle Me Elmo's and other popular toys that have been listed as "must haves" each year. Although this year, the commercialism has taken, in my opinion, turns for the worst. It's really playing to the selfish side of people. Every time I walk into McDonald's I see "Enjoy Season's Craving" with a McFlurry. You really can't forget the Rebecca Black commercial for Kohl's for Black Friday or the rounds of news reports of violence for that weekend; however, I want to address what every retail worker sees every Christmas season: the stupid, the idiot, and the grumpy customers. I know for the most part, I never lash out at strangers, but inside my head, this is what is happening.
The Stupid -
Many retail workers will understand my rant against customers whom act stupid. Most of us has at some point before working in retail acted as stupid is a store, but when working, we see a lot of stupid acts. I think the biggest peeve in this department is parents acting stupid and not controlling children to wreck havoc in say the toy section. We appreciate to instill self-discipline in your children or leave them with a babysitter instead of having them run around, crying uncontrollably or wrecking merchandise.
Unfortunately this isn't the only thing. Being stupid includes having "large gatherings" (looking at you Asians out there) and blocking the way while obvious things like say a cart or pallet jack is trying to pass by. When we ask you move, please move. Don't act like we've invaded your personal space or stare at us thinking, "Oh my gosh, people working... who knew! Let's watch." Don't be stupid about this, moving ensures everyone's safety. Most of the time, we ask nicely until the requests isn't fulfilled immediately.
The next one goes to bargain-hunters. I know I've seen this too much, although some days are worse than others. "Is this item an additional off?" or "Sale?" All well-meaning questions but only in stores that don't really mark their sales well, like in big-box stores and some outlet stores. I know you want cheap stuff, but it's made cheap. A lot of the times, you get what you paid for, and that holds true for many things today. Like I say to customers, "Sometimes, to get what you truly need, you need to pay up for quality over price. Many good things simply do not come cheap and have quality at the same time."
The Idiots -
Idiot customers are sorta like stupid ones, but bargain-hunters can also be categorized here as well. However, most of them are of the stubborn sort or "I am king, treat me as such when in store", both need to be brought back to earth.
They are first off, mighty persistent about things such as, "Do you have thing item in such and such size, I know you have them last week." Yeah, last week before it all sold out chum. I do not control the universe or our purchasing of clothing, so stop be a douche. Or the people that consider themselves "experts" and want help, you asked, but say, "Oh this brand sucks, and this one is better." At the end of the day, you are buying a name... A NAME. There is nothing special about a name, that is the last thing to think of. Most places utilize the same technology and slap a different name on it, although there are different unique technologies depending on the company. The way I think is, "What's the price? It is worth it? What is comparable from another company and it's price? What's the quality of construction? Customer reviews, good, bad?" Name? Why care? I realize that name is important; however, always shop around. When approaching them, I felt like I lost 10 minutes of maybe talking to somebody else that would listen instead of rebuke me.
Every year, it seems all of humanity (at least in the US) stoops to the lower common denominator of idiocy. "Oh hey, it's Christmas, let's act like a jerk." Don't come to me with "Oh, I have this toy that I need for my son, it's. I need it now. Meanwhile, I'm dealing with six people, I say, "I'll get to you in a minute after these customers who came before you."
"But... I NEED IT NOW!!!"
"Wait." Then I ignore them until I've dealt with the others, hopefully they got impatient and left.
I hate to be stereotypical, but I see this particular thing from African Americans and Latinos to mutter under my breath as "uppity idiocy". I fear when this particular thing may happen and this group acts like the own everything and sass everyone. They demand undivided attention and snap back viciously when you don't deliver. (I know, this is a generalization, but seen it mostly from this group of folks). Oh I don't have that movie that's been on promotion for the last two weeks and you decide to show up, oh pity. I've seen this happen when being asked, "So do you carry this item?"
"No."
"Well, Wal-mart does, so you guys should have it too."
"But we're not Wal-mart are we? This is Target, we carry different things." (Deal with it).
The Grumpy -
This one customer is a killjoy, just to exist to suck the whatever joy you may have had earlier and then it got leveled by this one customer. This customer is a rare occurrence outside of the holiday season; however, that is rooted in frantic shopping gone bad. These are people who simply are selfish bastards that need their demands met without remorse to whomever they are dealing with.
I tend to deflect this sort of customer into a close box of lies, or when they are acting at full douchiness, just simply treat them the way they treated me. Grumpy pants customer do not deserve my attention, they deserve, "Get out!" attention. I will gladly help the idiots and the stupid well before the ones that are pissed off. I know with grumpy men, they will grunt a lot and usually older men. With women, it's more subtle, but I can tell. Just because you're grumpy, doesn't mean to spread your woes on everyone else.
Be the Kind Customer -
Look, sometimes being stupid and an idiot happens, but grumpy, no excuse. I know it's a busy time of the year and hundreds of stores at one's choosing makes people confused and look clumsy. But grumpy people, you like the Grinch in reality. We don't want you, nobody does.
The commercialism of Christmas is a very disturbing trend here in America, there is nothing wrong about giving presents and such, but the problem is the methods or things being done to get the presents. I've reflected back on this subject many times in my head and I think being with family and friends is the most important part of the holidays. We've lost that in recent years as we think of giving as a chore instead of a joy to do.
Please, people who shop, for us retail people, but kind and thoughtful while shopping. Be above the chaos. Have the mentality of giving because you want to give; not the thoughts of "Oh man, another Christmas is coming, gotta get a gift for Aunt Sally... again, grrr." Giving is not a chore, it's serious business of giving something from the heart in a physical manner. At least have the balls to be real with yourself to be a complete jerk to person you don't want to give to, don't give if your heart isn't in it. If you have do, you're probably sucking up big time With that note...
Merry Christmas everyone!
- Roger
The retail industry is the only industry that I've known and worked for in my 22 years of existence. Sure, I've shadowed and seen other industries, but never the first hand experience. Those that know me, I've experienced the "big box" retail operations versus smaller retailers and there are differences in terms of customer service focus, scope, and communication. At the end of the day though, we're just serving customers.
By working in this industry, it seems like watching "Jingle All the Way" with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sinbad as the main character fighting for the "must have" toy of the Christmas season, the Turbo Man doll. It's much like the Tickle Me Elmo's and other popular toys that have been listed as "must haves" each year. Although this year, the commercialism has taken, in my opinion, turns for the worst. It's really playing to the selfish side of people. Every time I walk into McDonald's I see "Enjoy Season's Craving" with a McFlurry. You really can't forget the Rebecca Black commercial for Kohl's for Black Friday or the rounds of news reports of violence for that weekend; however, I want to address what every retail worker sees every Christmas season: the stupid, the idiot, and the grumpy customers. I know for the most part, I never lash out at strangers, but inside my head, this is what is happening.
The Stupid -
Many retail workers will understand my rant against customers whom act stupid. Most of us has at some point before working in retail acted as stupid is a store, but when working, we see a lot of stupid acts. I think the biggest peeve in this department is parents acting stupid and not controlling children to wreck havoc in say the toy section. We appreciate to instill self-discipline in your children or leave them with a babysitter instead of having them run around, crying uncontrollably or wrecking merchandise.
Unfortunately this isn't the only thing. Being stupid includes having "large gatherings" (looking at you Asians out there) and blocking the way while obvious things like say a cart or pallet jack is trying to pass by. When we ask you move, please move. Don't act like we've invaded your personal space or stare at us thinking, "Oh my gosh, people working... who knew! Let's watch." Don't be stupid about this, moving ensures everyone's safety. Most of the time, we ask nicely until the requests isn't fulfilled immediately.
The next one goes to bargain-hunters. I know I've seen this too much, although some days are worse than others. "Is this item an additional off?" or "Sale?" All well-meaning questions but only in stores that don't really mark their sales well, like in big-box stores and some outlet stores. I know you want cheap stuff, but it's made cheap. A lot of the times, you get what you paid for, and that holds true for many things today. Like I say to customers, "Sometimes, to get what you truly need, you need to pay up for quality over price. Many good things simply do not come cheap and have quality at the same time."
The Idiots -
Idiot customers are sorta like stupid ones, but bargain-hunters can also be categorized here as well. However, most of them are of the stubborn sort or "I am king, treat me as such when in store", both need to be brought back to earth.
They are first off, mighty persistent about things such as, "Do you have thing item in such and such size, I know you have them last week." Yeah, last week before it all sold out chum. I do not control the universe or our purchasing of clothing, so stop be a douche. Or the people that consider themselves "experts" and want help, you asked, but say, "Oh this brand sucks, and this one is better." At the end of the day, you are buying a name... A NAME. There is nothing special about a name, that is the last thing to think of. Most places utilize the same technology and slap a different name on it, although there are different unique technologies depending on the company. The way I think is, "What's the price? It is worth it? What is comparable from another company and it's price? What's the quality of construction? Customer reviews, good, bad?" Name? Why care? I realize that name is important; however, always shop around. When approaching them, I felt like I lost 10 minutes of maybe talking to somebody else that would listen instead of rebuke me.
Every year, it seems all of humanity (at least in the US) stoops to the lower common denominator of idiocy. "Oh hey, it's Christmas, let's act like a jerk." Don't come to me with "Oh, I have this toy that I need for my son, it's
"But... I NEED IT NOW!!!"
"Wait." Then I ignore them until I've dealt with the others, hopefully they got impatient and left.
I hate to be stereotypical, but I see this particular thing from African Americans and Latinos to mutter under my breath as "uppity idiocy". I fear when this particular thing may happen and this group acts like the own everything and sass everyone. They demand undivided attention and snap back viciously when you don't deliver. (I know, this is a generalization, but seen it mostly from this group of folks). Oh I don't have that movie that's been on promotion for the last two weeks and you decide to show up, oh pity. I've seen this happen when being asked, "So do you carry this item?"
"No."
"Well, Wal-mart does, so you guys should have it too."
"But we're not Wal-mart are we? This is Target, we carry different things." (Deal with it).
The Grumpy -
This one customer is a killjoy, just to exist to suck the whatever joy you may have had earlier and then it got leveled by this one customer. This customer is a rare occurrence outside of the holiday season; however, that is rooted in frantic shopping gone bad. These are people who simply are selfish bastards that need their demands met without remorse to whomever they are dealing with.
I tend to deflect this sort of customer into a close box of lies, or when they are acting at full douchiness, just simply treat them the way they treated me. Grumpy pants customer do not deserve my attention, they deserve, "Get out!" attention. I will gladly help the idiots and the stupid well before the ones that are pissed off. I know with grumpy men, they will grunt a lot and usually older men. With women, it's more subtle, but I can tell. Just because you're grumpy, doesn't mean to spread your woes on everyone else.
Be the Kind Customer -
Look, sometimes being stupid and an idiot happens, but grumpy, no excuse. I know it's a busy time of the year and hundreds of stores at one's choosing makes people confused and look clumsy. But grumpy people, you like the Grinch in reality. We don't want you, nobody does.
The commercialism of Christmas is a very disturbing trend here in America, there is nothing wrong about giving presents and such, but the problem is the methods or things being done to get the presents. I've reflected back on this subject many times in my head and I think being with family and friends is the most important part of the holidays. We've lost that in recent years as we think of giving as a chore instead of a joy to do.
Please, people who shop, for us retail people, but kind and thoughtful while shopping. Be above the chaos. Have the mentality of giving because you want to give; not the thoughts of "Oh man, another Christmas is coming, gotta get a gift for Aunt Sally... again, grrr." Giving is not a chore, it's serious business of giving something from the heart in a physical manner. At least have the balls to be real with yourself to be a complete jerk to person you don't want to give to, don't give if your heart isn't in it. If you have do, you're probably sucking up big time With that note...
Merry Christmas everyone!
- Roger
Friday, December 16, 2011
Ex parte Quirin - The Beginning of it All and My Conclusion
Ex parte Quirin -
Ex parte Quirin - Opinion Text
This ruling dates back to 1942 during the height of World War II. It upheld the fact that the president could order a military tribunal to try war crimes committed by war criminals/enemy combatants instead of trying them in civilian courts. The interesting thing in this case was that one of the German saboteurs was a US citizen named Herbert Hans Haupt, who was electrocuted on August 8, 1942.
In the decision, they touch on Haupt's US citizenship with this statement:
So if you switch enough to one side opposing the United States, you automatically forfeit your US citizenship. These cases are pretty simple to understand their nature and context. However, the context of Ex parte Quirin is more about the constitutionality of presidential order of military tribunals, than on Haupt. Yes, this is an example of a US citizen on trial without his full rights, since the USMJ is more restrictive on due process and such. So yes, we've been dealing this subject for a long, long time.
I'll touch shortly on Ex parte Milligan since it dates to the Civil War, where the Supreme Court ruled that application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. It was one of the first cases right after the end of the Civil War. The Court decided the Milligan precedent did not apply here since the ruling in the Milligan case was that Lambdin Milligan was not a enemy belligerent and not entitled to the law of war, unfortunately for Haupt, he was classified as an enemy belligerent. In Milligan, there was a suspension of habeas corpus through the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. The court ruled that the Act did not authorized military tribunals and through constitutional law, suspension of habeas corpus does not authorize military tribunals. Even martial law cannot authorize tribunals either as long as civilian courts remained open and operating unimpeded
Legal precedents on this date back to the Mexican War where spies were put to death.
"Such was the practice of our own military authorities before the adoption of the Constitution,9 and during the Mexican and Civil Wars. 10 [317 U.S. 1, 32] Paragraph 83 of General Order No. 100 of April 24, 1863, directed that: 'Scouts or single soldiers, if disguised in the dress of the country, or in the uniform of the army hostile to their own, employed in obtaining information, if found within or lurking about the lines of the captor, are treated as spies, and suffer death.'
Our Government, by thus defining lawful belligerents entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, has recognized that there is a class of unlawful belligerents not entitled to that privilege, including those who though combatants do not wear 'fixed and distinctive emblems'. And by Article 15 of the Articles of War Congress has made provision for their trial and punishment by military commission, according to 'the law of war'."
___________________________________
In conclusion of this interesting road through to understand NDAA section 1031 and 1032, we can see the legal difficulties reached through the years. We still don't have a "clear" definition, and they admit so. This is why anyone linking me to bloggers or journalists cannot sway me. They rarely give a contextual view of the subject, and I've given you probably the most indepth context review you'll ever see on this subject outside of studying law and being a lawyer in case law. I went to sources to understand, not opinions, everyone has one, and so do I, but I like to be impartial in my opinion as long as possible to gain a full understanding of the facts at hand.
I believe now that in a way, encroachment on liberties have happened, and we've allowed them to happen; however, the focus on NDAA is misguided on it's focus. I type here to argue that we have subjected ourselves to encroachment through Public Law 107-40 defining the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) or even the Patriot Act, both of which were kneejerk reactions from September 11th.
I know I've been commented on "the more you know, the more you don't". I cannot be said of this, because this is everything about NDAA down to the precedents of precedents in case law regarding detention, the use of military tribunals and case law regarding detention of US citizens. I have broken down the case laws and the NDAA Sec. 1031 and 1032 with undeniable proof of original text and videos that cannot be twisted. I know I've given huge walls of quotes as to give fuller contextual understanding of the cases I've read.
There is no hidden language anywhere that I've seen so far, and the court of expert opinion lays in lawyers versed in case law and constitutional law. I've yet to see a huge cry from this community discussing the NDAA at length, I know the ever present ACLU has though.
I state for the record that the NDAA Sec. 1031 and 1032 are vague and very arguable unconstitutional for very good reasons of gross encroachment. I will also say that people saying that 1032 does apply to Americans is wrong plain and simple, the wording expressly says that it does not apply to US citizens. As legal case law I've presented to you, the United States Government can under certain circumstances detain US citizens without charge, to be charged in military court, and it dates back to World War II.
There is a reason the why they are sections, they don't expressly overlap each other unless it says otherwise. The example is in Sec. 1032(3) under DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR referring back to Sec. 1031(c). Both sections have different COVERED PERSONS, although the one in 1032 is broader than the one in 1031. Am I not making myself sound clear that in some way this isn't some conspiracy theory?
Even then, I already broke down Covered Persons in 1031, and you pretty much have to be Mr. Haupt to be considered a terrorist and support of enemy forces. Sure, the "substantial support" wording is vague but I would say and probably win in the court of law that substantial support entails being knowledgeable in one's support of enemy forces.
The thing is to buy into a conspiracy, one has to twist words and meaning, and that means leaving out context. I've fleshed it all out, everything is laid out to bear. Case law has sided that being detained as a US citizen doesn't mean one is without legal recourse, since we do have legal precedent.
Prove me wrong here with expert opinion, because I sure as hell would welcome it. Bloggers will not suffice unless they have credentials worthy of holding such an opinion. Those preferably with case law background or law journalism would be the preferred and impartial.
Ex parte Quirin - Opinion Text
This ruling dates back to 1942 during the height of World War II. It upheld the fact that the president could order a military tribunal to try war crimes committed by war criminals/enemy combatants instead of trying them in civilian courts. The interesting thing in this case was that one of the German saboteurs was a US citizen named Herbert Hans Haupt, who was electrocuted on August 8, 1942.
In the decision, they touch on Haupt's US citizenship with this statement:
"All except petitioner Haupt are admittedly citizens of the German Reich, with which the United States is at war. Haupt came to this country with his parents when he was five years old; it is contended that he became a citizen of the United States by virtue of the naturalization of his parents during his minority and that he has not since lost his citizenship. The Government, however, takes the position that on attaining his majority he elected to maintain German allegiance and citizenship or in any case that he has by his conduct renounced or abandoned his United States citizenship. See Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 334 , 59 S.Ct. 884, 889; United States ex rel. Rojak v. Marshall, D.C., 34 F.2d 219; United States ex rel. Scimeca v. Husband, 2 Cir., 6 F.2d 957, 958; 8 U.S.C. 801, 8 U.S. C.A. 801, and compare 8 U.S.C. 808, 8 U.S.C.A. 808. For reasons presently to be stated we do not find it necessary to resolve these contentions. [317 U.S. 1, 21]"
Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. Cf. Gates v. Goodloe, 101 U.S. 612, 615 , 617 S., 618. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused.
Petitioners, and especially petitioner Haupt, stress the pronouncement of this Court in the Milligan case, 4 Wall. page 121, that the law of war 'can never be applied to citizens in states which have upheld the authority of the government, and where the courts are open and their process unobstructed'. Elsewhere in its opinion, 4 Wall. at pages 118, 121, 122, and 131, the Court was at pains to point out that Milligan, a citizen twenty years resident in Indiana, who had never been a resident of any of the states in rebellion, was not an enemy belligerent either entitled to the status of a prisoner of war or subject to the penalties imposed upon unlawful belligerents. We construe the Court's statement as to the inapplicability of the law of war to Milligan's case as having particular reference to the facts before it. From them the Court concluded that Milligan, not being a part of or associated with the armed forces of the enemy, was a non-belligerent, not subject to the law of war save as-in circumstances found not there to be present and not involved here-martial law might be constitutionally established.
So if you switch enough to one side opposing the United States, you automatically forfeit your US citizenship. These cases are pretty simple to understand their nature and context. However, the context of Ex parte Quirin is more about the constitutionality of presidential order of military tribunals, than on Haupt. Yes, this is an example of a US citizen on trial without his full rights, since the USMJ is more restrictive on due process and such. So yes, we've been dealing this subject for a long, long time.
I'll touch shortly on Ex parte Milligan since it dates to the Civil War, where the Supreme Court ruled that application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. It was one of the first cases right after the end of the Civil War. The Court decided the Milligan precedent did not apply here since the ruling in the Milligan case was that Lambdin Milligan was not a enemy belligerent and not entitled to the law of war, unfortunately for Haupt, he was classified as an enemy belligerent. In Milligan, there was a suspension of habeas corpus through the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. The court ruled that the Act did not authorized military tribunals and through constitutional law, suspension of habeas corpus does not authorize military tribunals. Even martial law cannot authorize tribunals either as long as civilian courts remained open and operating unimpeded
Legal precedents on this date back to the Mexican War where spies were put to death.
"Such was the practice of our own military authorities before the adoption of the Constitution,9 and during the Mexican and Civil Wars. 10 [317 U.S. 1, 32] Paragraph 83 of General Order No. 100 of April 24, 1863, directed that: 'Scouts or single soldiers, if disguised in the dress of the country, or in the uniform of the army hostile to their own, employed in obtaining information, if found within or lurking about the lines of the captor, are treated as spies, and suffer death.'
Our Government, by thus defining lawful belligerents entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, has recognized that there is a class of unlawful belligerents not entitled to that privilege, including those who though combatants do not wear 'fixed and distinctive emblems'. And by Article 15 of the Articles of War Congress has made provision for their trial and punishment by military commission, according to 'the law of war'."
___________________________________
In conclusion of this interesting road through to understand NDAA section 1031 and 1032, we can see the legal difficulties reached through the years. We still don't have a "clear" definition, and they admit so. This is why anyone linking me to bloggers or journalists cannot sway me. They rarely give a contextual view of the subject, and I've given you probably the most indepth context review you'll ever see on this subject outside of studying law and being a lawyer in case law. I went to sources to understand, not opinions, everyone has one, and so do I, but I like to be impartial in my opinion as long as possible to gain a full understanding of the facts at hand.
I believe now that in a way, encroachment on liberties have happened, and we've allowed them to happen; however, the focus on NDAA is misguided on it's focus. I type here to argue that we have subjected ourselves to encroachment through Public Law 107-40 defining the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) or even the Patriot Act, both of which were kneejerk reactions from September 11th.
I know I've been commented on "the more you know, the more you don't". I cannot be said of this, because this is everything about NDAA down to the precedents of precedents in case law regarding detention, the use of military tribunals and case law regarding detention of US citizens. I have broken down the case laws and the NDAA Sec. 1031 and 1032 with undeniable proof of original text and videos that cannot be twisted. I know I've given huge walls of quotes as to give fuller contextual understanding of the cases I've read.
There is no hidden language anywhere that I've seen so far, and the court of expert opinion lays in lawyers versed in case law and constitutional law. I've yet to see a huge cry from this community discussing the NDAA at length, I know the ever present ACLU has though.
I state for the record that the NDAA Sec. 1031 and 1032 are vague and very arguable unconstitutional for very good reasons of gross encroachment. I will also say that people saying that 1032 does apply to Americans is wrong plain and simple, the wording expressly says that it does not apply to US citizens. As legal case law I've presented to you, the United States Government can under certain circumstances detain US citizens without charge, to be charged in military court, and it dates back to World War II.
There is a reason the why they are sections, they don't expressly overlap each other unless it says otherwise. The example is in Sec. 1032(3) under DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR referring back to Sec. 1031(c). Both sections have different COVERED PERSONS, although the one in 1032 is broader than the one in 1031. Am I not making myself sound clear that in some way this isn't some conspiracy theory?
Even then, I already broke down Covered Persons in 1031, and you pretty much have to be Mr. Haupt to be considered a terrorist and support of enemy forces. Sure, the "substantial support" wording is vague but I would say and probably win in the court of law that substantial support entails being knowledgeable in one's support of enemy forces.
The thing is to buy into a conspiracy, one has to twist words and meaning, and that means leaving out context. I've fleshed it all out, everything is laid out to bear. Case law has sided that being detained as a US citizen doesn't mean one is without legal recourse, since we do have legal precedent.
Prove me wrong here with expert opinion, because I sure as hell would welcome it. Bloggers will not suffice unless they have credentials worthy of holding such an opinion. Those preferably with case law background or law journalism would be the preferred and impartial.
Hamdi v. Rumfeld - Legal Precedents Continued
Hamdi v. Rumfeld -
Court Decision - Original Text
Actually, Hamdi v. Rumfeld predates the Padilla case by sheer months, you'll see tidbits of it in the Fourth Circuit ruling as you have read. This case actually got to the Supreme Court after having being batted back and forth between District Court of Eastern Virginia and the Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit several times. This was an interesting excerpt from the ruling:
Court Decision - Original Text
Actually, Hamdi v. Rumfeld predates the Padilla case by sheer months, you'll see tidbits of it in the Fourth Circuit ruling as you have read. This case actually got to the Supreme Court after having being batted back and forth between District Court of Eastern Virginia and the Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit several times. This was an interesting excerpt from the ruling:
Despite the clear allocation of war powers to the political branches, judicial deference to executive decisions made in the name of war is not unlimited. The Bill of Rights which Hamdi invokes in his petition is as much an instrument of mutual respect and tolerance as the Fourteenth Amendment is. It applies to American citizens regardless of race, color, or creed. And as we become a more diverse nation, the Bill of Rights may become even more a lens through which we recognize ourselves. To deprive any American citizen of its protections is not a step that any court would casually take.
Drawing on the Bill of Rights’ historic guarantees, the judiciary plays its distinctive role in our constitutional structure when it reviews the detention of American citizens by their own government. Indeed, if due process means anything, it means that the courts must defend
the "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions." Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S.45, 67 (1932) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Constitution is suffused with concern about how the state will wield its awesome power of forcible restraint. And this preoccupation was not accidental. Our forebears recognized that the power to detain could easily become destructive "if exerted without check or control" by an unrestrained executive free to "imprison, dispatch, or exile any man that
was obnoxious to the government, by an instant declaration that such is their will and pleasure." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 349-50 (Cooley ed. 1899) (quoted in Duncan v.Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 151 (1968)).
The duty of the judicial branch to protect our individual freedoms does not simply cease whenever our military forces are committed by the political branches to armed conflict. The Founders "foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would . . . seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper; and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril, unless established by irrepealable law." Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120 (1866). While that recognition does not dispose of this case, it does indicate one thing: The detention of United States citizens must be subject to judicial review. See Hamdi II, 296 F.3d at 283.
It is significant, moreover, that the form of relief sought by Hamdi is a writ of habeas corpus. In war as in peace, habeas corpus provides one of the firmest bulwarks against unconstitutional detentions. As early as 1789, Congress reaffirmed the courts’ common law authority to review detentions of federal prisoners, giving its explicit blessing to the judiciary’s power to "grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment" for federal detainees. Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 81-82. While the scope of habeas review has expanded and contracted over the succeeding centuries, its essential function of assuring that restraint accords with the rule of law, not the whim of authority, remains unchanged. Hamdi’s petition falls squarely within the Great Writ’s purview, sinceThe writing of this opinion is simply stunning in it's prose, it's scope and thoughfulness of all the issues at hand. I love when they pull out William Blackstone and his Commentaries on the Laws of England. They admit that the law isn't that perfect, when it comes to war, it's really hard to neatly define it.
he is an American citizen challenging his summary detention for reasons of state necessity."
"The safeguards that all Americans have come to expect in criminal prosecutions do not translate neatly to the arena of armed conflict. In fact, if deference to the executive is not exercised with respect to military judgments in the field, it is difficult to see where deference would ever obtain. For there is a "well-established power of the military to exercise jurisdiction over members of the armed forces, those directly connected with such forces, [and] enemy belligerents, prisoners of war, [and] others charged with violating the laws of war." Duncan v.
Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 313-14 (1946) (footnotes omitted). As we emphasized in our prior decision, any judicial inquiry into Hamdi’s status as an alleged enemy combatant in Afghanistan must reflect this deference as well as "a recognition that government has
no more profound responsibility" than the protection of American citizensfrom further terrorist attacks. Hamdi II, 296 F.3d at 283."
"18 U.S.C. § 4001 (2002). Hamdi argues that there is no congressional sanction for his incarceration and that § 4001(a) therefore prohibit his continued detention. We find this contention unpersuasive.In the second part here, is the decision on the Non-Detention Act of 1971 and they dismiss Hamdi's argument on it. They point out that Congress has authorized his detention through Public Law 107-40 (AUMF). In the end, they do agree that the detention of a US citizen is subject to judicial review. It's true, the AUMF is an act of Congress and pretty much extend the reach of detainment to US citizens.
Even if Hamdi were right that § 4001(a) requires Congressional authorization of his detention, Congress has, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" or "harbored such organizations or persons." Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (Sept. 18, 2001) (emphasis added). As noted above, capturing and detaining enemy combatants is an inherent part of warfare; the "necessary and appropriate force" referenced in the congressional resolution necessarily includes the capture and detention of any and all
hostile forces arrayed against our troops."
18 U.S.C. § 4001 (Non-Detention Act of 1971) regulates the detentions of United States citizens.
It states in full:
(a) No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.
The Padilla Case - Foundation of Section 1031 and 1032
Padilla Case -
This case has spanned many years since Jose Padilla was arrested back in 2002 for training with the Taliban and engage in acts of hostilities against the United States. It actually still continues to this day in the civilian court system as Mr. Padilla's sentencing to 17 years to prison is being re-appealed for a harsher sentencing. Originally the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York heard the case first, and back in December 2002 to uphold the Bush Administration's decision to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant. It took another year to have the case appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where in a 2 to 1 decision decided that Bush Administration overstepped their authority. The following is some of the opinions written by the justices: (2nd Circuit Decision - Original Text)
Indeed it was retried again and worked it's way into the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit where the majority decision that upheld the government's position of labeling Padilla, a US citizen, as an enemy combatant and to be held without charge in the military prison. (US Fourth Circuit Decision - Original Text)
Suddenly, you'll see a wholly different opinion then the one from the 2nd Circuit:
However, later that year, the Bush Administration decided to transfer Padilla out of military custody into civilian custody and thus avoided the Supreme Court ruling on habeas corpus ruling for US citizens as enemy combatants. The transfer had to go through Judge Luttig and the 4th Circuit, but the tone was definitely different this time. Folks have commented that Luttig was scolding the Bush Administration for being a chicken or he believed the Supreme Court would actually reaffirm the government's position. What we do know, Luttig wasn't happy and quit the Fourth Circuit for a job at Boeing soon afterwards. (Fourth Circuit Transfer Ruling)
The conclusion of this case is still being dealt through the civilian system today; however, that's not the focus of the post. The thing is, the ruling of the land is the Fourth Circuit ruling to be held as an enemy combatant and be held without charge in a military brig. Unfortunately, we know that the War on Terror is an indefinite period; however, through AUMF, conclusion of hostilities in legal terms is the end of the War in Afghanistan if Mr. Padilla was still being held militarily. Afterwards, he can have some recourse to civilian court. It must be noted that while in military custody, there is due process, but it's not in as large a scope provided under the United States Constitution.
This case has spanned many years since Jose Padilla was arrested back in 2002 for training with the Taliban and engage in acts of hostilities against the United States. It actually still continues to this day in the civilian court system as Mr. Padilla's sentencing to 17 years to prison is being re-appealed for a harsher sentencing. Originally the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York heard the case first, and back in December 2002 to uphold the Bush Administration's decision to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant. It took another year to have the case appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where in a 2 to 1 decision decided that Bush Administration overstepped their authority. The following is some of the opinions written by the justices: (2nd Circuit Decision - Original Text)
"We also conclude that Padilla’s detention was not authorized by Congress, and absent such authorization, the President does not have the power under Article II of the Constitution to detain as an enemy combatant an American citizen seized on American soil outside a zone of combat.
But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those
responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the President is obligated, in the
circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress.
Where, as here, the President’s power as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and
the domestic rule of law intersect, we conclude that clear congressional authorization is required for detentions of American citizens on American soil because 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) (2000) (the“Non-Detention Act”) prohibits such detentions absent specific congressional authorization.Congress’s Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115Stat. 224 (2001) (“Joint Resolution”), passed shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, is not such an authorization, and no exception to section 4001(a) otherwise exists.
In light of this express prohibition, the government must undertake to show that Padilla’s detention can nonetheless be grounded in the President’s inherent constitutional powers. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637-38 (Jackson, J., concurring). We conclude that it Therefore, our holding effectively moots arguments raised by both parties concerning access to counsel, standard of review, and burden of proof. These details should not be read to suggest that Padilla is in fact innocent or that the government lacked substantial reasons to be suspicious of him. We include them because they has not made this showing. In reaching this conclusion, we do not address the detention of an American citizen seized within a zone of combat in Afghanistan, such as the court confronted in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 316 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 2003) (“Hamdi III”)."So it continued onwards towards the Supreme Court where it was turned down due to the Court held that the habeas corpus petition had been improperly filed because Padilla was being held in a brig in South Carolina, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina and should have named the commander of the brig and not the Secretary of Defense (because the brig commander was Padilla's "immediate custodian"). The Court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and remanded the case for dismissal without prejudice - that is, it overruled the Court of Appeals decision and ordered the dismissal of the case, allowing Padilla to refile the petition.
Indeed it was retried again and worked it's way into the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit where the majority decision that upheld the government's position of labeling Padilla, a US citizen, as an enemy combatant and to be held without charge in the military prison. (US Fourth Circuit Decision - Original Text)
Suddenly, you'll see a wholly different opinion then the one from the 2nd Circuit:
"The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war; who took up arms on"The district court (of South Carolina) subsequently held that the President lacks the authority to detain Padilla, id. at 180-81, that Padilla’s detention is in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, id., and that Padilla therefore must either be criminally charged or released." This uphold the 2nd circuit ruling so far. In the end, the ruling judge for the Fourth Circuit, Judge Luttig ruled against Padilla to pave a way to a Supreme Court ruling.
behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets.
We conclude that the President does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed."
However, later that year, the Bush Administration decided to transfer Padilla out of military custody into civilian custody and thus avoided the Supreme Court ruling on habeas corpus ruling for US citizens as enemy combatants. The transfer had to go through Judge Luttig and the 4th Circuit, but the tone was definitely different this time. Folks have commented that Luttig was scolding the Bush Administration for being a chicken or he believed the Supreme Court would actually reaffirm the government's position. What we do know, Luttig wasn't happy and quit the Fourth Circuit for a job at Boeing soon afterwards. (Fourth Circuit Transfer Ruling)
"Because we believe that the transfer of Padilla and the withdrawal of our opinion at the government’s request while the Supreme Court is reviewing this court’s decision of September 9 would compound what is, in the absence of explanation, at least an appearance that the
government may be attempting to avoid consideration of our decision by the Supreme Court, and also because we believe that this case presents an issue of such especial national importance as to warrant final consideration by that court, even if only by denial of further
review, we deny both the motion and suggestion. If the natural progression of this significant litigation to conclusion is to be predetermined at this late date under these circumstances, we believe that decision should be made not by this court but, rather, by the Supreme
Court of the United States."
The conclusion of this case is still being dealt through the civilian system today; however, that's not the focus of the post. The thing is, the ruling of the land is the Fourth Circuit ruling to be held as an enemy combatant and be held without charge in a military brig. Unfortunately, we know that the War on Terror is an indefinite period; however, through AUMF, conclusion of hostilities in legal terms is the end of the War in Afghanistan if Mr. Padilla was still being held militarily. Afterwards, he can have some recourse to civilian court. It must be noted that while in military custody, there is due process, but it's not in as large a scope provided under the United States Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)