Replies

BUMP!

I have come to the conclusion that the Administration itself is willfully backing these spurious "Star Chamber" exercises ... primarily to keep the International Criminal Court, which we aren't a party to...but are "cooperating" with...OUT of our hair.

It is a temporary political expedient...appeasement of the globalist entity...

The head of the ICC even alludes to the US record of self-prosecuting so as to justify his decision to refrain from exercising their jurisdiction to commence war crime trials. That being said, good, honest men should have their rights protected in full...especially those who have pledged and sacrificed their all...and no amount of national interest in appeasing the globalists should enter into the equation at all.

This is a classic case of why I have lost a lot of respect for W and his top echelons. They really don't stand on core CONSTITUTIONAL principles. And no matter how it may temprorarily appear...I can only conclued that they aren't really looking out for us...they have other, globalist, fish to fry.

The refraining from signing the ICC was a mere temporary tactical position in my judgment. I honestly don't think that W would ever agree with Ronald Reagan, when he said in his farewell address:

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the people." "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.

This is a classic case of why I have lost a lot of respect for W and his top echelons. They really don't stand on core CONSTITUTIONAL principles.

Thank you for your post. Much food for thought. I had not looked at it from the angle before, and everything you say rings true.

The cases of the Pendleton Eight, Lt. Pantano, etc., are the military equivalent of the persecution of the Border Patrol agents in Texas. In both cases, the Administration is sending a message: if you become too effective in doing your job, you will be subject to prosecution. Thank God for the Internet, especially sites such as FR, which have brought both foreign and domestic cases to public attention and made Star Chamber proceedings more difficult to hide.

One has to wonder if this Administration wants victory in Iraq. This "nation building" strategy resembles our failed policy in Vietnam 35 years ago, where we tied the hands of our military and did not defeat the Communist enemy. We appear equally ineffectual against the radical Muslim enemy in 2007.