A couple of months ago, I cited the example of upgraded Abrams tanks being shoved down the Pentagon’s throat by certain members of Congress because tank production = jobs back in the district. I followed that up with some historical background on congressional Pentagon pork-barreling that is discussed in former Reagan budget director David Stockman’s new book. Yesterday, a Wall Street…Details
In a published FOIA request, an Airman stationed in the UK was investigated after a mental breakdown caused by conflicting values of US military’s mission and her own political beliefs. She was found to sympathize with Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Wikileaks. She had admitted to communicating her political ideas with various organizations known for anti-war/anti-military sentiments on Twitter and to a UK journalist. She also attended the Julian Assange Trial. However, her own admission and tweets revealed that she was never asked to release any intelligence to these groups and denied volunteering any intelligence to any journalist or group. The US Airforce Office of Special Investigations filed a complaint report on matters alleging “Communicating with the Enemy.”
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 104: Communicating with the Enemy states:
“Any person who–
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”
Who is the enemy in this document? Is it Julian Assange? Wikileaks? Journalists? Bloggers? Social media users? Those opposed to an unconstitutional and failed foreign policy? Anti-war organizations? The leaked document does not directly point to any person or organization but acknowledges who the Airman was in contact with and her activities surrounding her political beliefs. But, constitutionally speaking, who gets to determine the enemy?
The Constitution does not provide any structure to determine an enemy. An enemy could be those the US is at war with. Congress has the power to declare war but there is no framework as to what constitutes a declaration of war. In Federalist Paper number 3, it states, “The just causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence.”Details
House Bill 149 (LS: 83R) – Texas Liberty Preservation Act.
HB149 is a Bill introduced in the Texas Legislative Process on Nov. 12, 2012, by its author (Rep. Lyle Larson) and currently sits at stage 1 (filed). The design of the Bill is to nullify portions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) implemented by the federal law. Specifically, sections 1021 and 1022 are being made invalid and illegal in the State of Texas. You can read the entire bill here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB00149I.pdf#navpanes=0
Section (1) (b) (1) of the Bill lays out the constitutional groundwork of the findings that prompted the bill in the first place. It notes the limitations of the federal government under the 10th Amendment. It read:
(b) The legislature finds that:
(1) The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorizes the United States federal government to exercise only those powers specifically delegated to it under Article I, Section 8, United States Constitution;
Many people think that whatever the federal government creates as law it is the “supreme law of the land” but that is not true. Often the federal government creates laws that are thrown out because they go beyond the powers delegated to the government in the Constitution. Section (1) (b) (3) of the Bill makes this point eloquently clear. It reads:Details
Over at Red State, Eric Erickson has concluded that the law means nothing. This revelation is nothing new for Tenthers, who’ve long understood the futility of relying on the federal government to solve problems created and compounded by the federal government. Specifically, Erickson was writing on the cuts to military spending that sequestration is supposed to bring, should congress fail to arrive at some agreement to bilk the taxpayers a little but more come January, 2013.
This threat of cuts to the Sacred Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex, forever praise its name, has many on the Right foaming at the mouth about the need for fiscal restraint, but in the proper way. I mean, let’s get real, how could anyone seriously suggest any cut to the Pentagon? This subject truly is the third rail. At least we hear rhetoric about reforming social security or Medicare on occasion, but military spending is strictly off limits.
Never mind that many of these now-outraged Republicans voted for sequestration when they agreed to the debt ceiling compromise last fall. And so what if John Boehner said he liked 98% of what was in that bill; we cant be derailing the MICC’s gravy train; not now, not ever. Especially with unemployment being what it is, cutting military spending will surely force tens of thousands of more folks to seek unemployment benefits in the coming months.Details
In a move that will hopefully be copied nationwide over the next few years, Montana lawmakers are considering forming and training an armed volunteer force of “home guards” certified by the governor and not subject to federal oversight. These home guards would be under the direct authority of the county sherriffs and the governor during any state emergency.
According to the Billings Gazette:
Supporters said the bill is not about arming citizens but to provide additional emergency services as some other states do.
A number of states have a state defense force like a “home guard” for responding to emergencies but few states have an armed force like the bill proposes.
As you might expect, the idea of a sovereign state organizing its citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights has met with considerable shock, outrage and hyperbole from the Left.Details
Oath Keepers simply recognize that there are certain orders we would NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.Details
Few decisions are more serious than the decision to send our nation’s young men and women off to kill and be killed in the name of our country. Since it is the everyday people whose sons and daughters are sent off to war, our nation’s founding fathers made sure that the power to make war…Details
David Franke writes: An executive order signed by President Clinton and used by President George W. Bush purportedly allows U.S. Special Forces to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act. We have to say “purportedly” because—of course—key parts of the executive order are classified. Scahill asks the natural followup question: “To what extent are U.S. Special Forces…Details
The recent Medina debacle on Glenn Beck’s overrated show highlights the obvious hypocrisy of the Beltway Right-wing when it comes to conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories that question government action are shunned while ones that endorse all-out war are to be embraced and repeated. I have one simple question though for anyone free-thinking enough not to…Details
The following is a letter sent to Louisiana State Rep Brett F. Geymann. I encourage you to do the same with your state reps: On January 11, 2010, Pres. Obama signed an Executive Order, which grants the executive branch of the federal government new, far-reaching powers over the National Guard of each state. You may…Details