This series addresses the War on Terror. While my stances on both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are very clear, in this piece I will propose what to do with Guantanamo Bay and its prisoners.  In Part 1, I explained the history of Guantanamo for knowing its history is key to understanding what should be done with this military base.  In this piece,  I will dissect a recent editorial published in the local newspaper by the incumbent Congressman and then propose my solutions on how to handle Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Following this, no current discussion on terror would be complete without discussing the controversial body scanning and I will add my comments and solutions on airline safety. The last part will summarize border security and just how dangerous the war on terror is – not only to our soldiers who risk their lives everyday and avoiding financial ruin as a country, but also to our liberties as a free society.          (more…)

This short series will address the War on Terror. While my stances on both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are very clear, I have not yet formally written on Guantanamo Bay and its prisoners, offered practical solutions to improve our border and airline safety, and commented in depth on our foreign policy and terrorism abroad. In this part, I will explain the history of ‘Gitmo’ for knowing its history is key to understanding what should be done with this military base. Next I will dissect a recent editorial published in the local newspaper by the incumbent Congressman and then propose my solutions on how to handle Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Following this, no current discussion on terror would be complete without discussing the controversial body scanning and I will add my comments and solutions on airline safety. The last part will summarize just how dangerous the war on terror is – not only to our soldiers who risk their lives everyday and avoiding financial ruin as a country, but also to our liberties as a free society.

Readers should be aware that the incumbent in my congressional race sits on Homeland Security and is a rabid supporter of the Bush and Obama administrations’ War on Terror. While I do not question his motives to protect the American people, I do very much oppose his actions and ineffective solutions. Our country’s leaders have not only plunged our nation into expensive, preemptive, and unjust wars for the past decade, but have embarked on a vast extension of a modern-day police state. It is the duty of every citizen to question whether these new restraints over our lives are, in fact, beneficial. I view the infringement of civil liberties that are protected by our Constitution as not only illegal but unnecessary and immoral.

THE GUANTANAMO PROBLEM

“History… should not be forgotten. History itself, whether bad or good, should not be forgotten.” – Chen Zhiyong

“The detention facilities at Guantanamo for individuals covered under this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order.” – President Obama by Executive Order, January 22, 2009.  Time’s up.

I remember the years after 9/11 when the government announced they were stowing away “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. CUBA? I remember thinking. Why Cuba? Aren’t they communist and not exactly on cordial relations with the USA? I never pursued my curiosity further than this for many years until I moved abroad to communist China and completely changed my views on the War of Terror.

The origins of Guantanamo’s long, strange trip under US control began when the U.S.S. Maine exploded on February 15, 1898 in Havana’s harbor while Cuba was revolting against the Spanish empire. While the Maine was certainly not attacked by the Spanish navy, to this day it is uncertain whether stored ammunition exploded or the ship hit a mine. At any rate, the battleship was an unwelcome military presence.  (Photo shown entering Havana harbor three weeks prior to explosion.)

William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal published fictional drawings of Spanish saboteurs attacking the vessel after famously cabling his journalist, “You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.” As a result, Congress declared war against Spain in April 1898. The war cry was “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!“

Led by future President Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, the motley army won several quick battles before malaria and dysentery could overwhelm them. While Cuba was technically made independent by the Treaty of Paris in 1898, the US government forced Cuba to add the infamous Platt Amendment to its constitution, stripping away completely its sovereignty and enabling the US to intervene in domestic affairs, making it a de facto satellite of the United States from 1901 until 1934. Marines were sent to quell insurrections in 1906, 1912, 1917, and 1920. (1)

Guantanamo Bay, consisting of 45 square miles, was part of the Platt Amendment, and the US Navy established a refueling station to project power around the Caribbean and Panama Canal. Cuba’s independence had no effect on the base besides changing it’s rental agreement. When former lawyer Fidel Castro took over as dictator of a communist police state in 1959 following the Cuban Revolution, he attempted to remove the naval base and, after cashing the first rental check, has not cashed any additional checks sent by the government through the present day.

A Cuban minefield still borders the base on land – the US removed its minefield under Clinton – and the Cuban government still treats the base as hostile. Perhaps from an American perspective, an equivalent situation would exist if China were to take over part of the coast of Oregon, plunk down a base for its navy complete with Starbucks, Pizza Hut, KFC, and McDonald’s, imprison and torture their criminals, terrorists, and prisoners of war there, and then send checks for a rent that we never cash.

It should be plainly obvious that the proper action to take is to not only close down the prison camp, but also to eventually close down the entire military base and return the property to Cuba. This would go a long way towards restoring peace, commerce, and friendship with the impoverished and isolated country. While the harsh socialist economic policies of the Castro regime certainly has not done Cubans much good, neither have American trade embargoes or the attempted CIA invasion in 1961 helped Americans.

It’s time to let bygones be bygones and simply return the property to Cuba. Now, what to do about the prisoners? Well, I will get to that. Let’s first take a look at the incumbent’s claim that closing Guantanamo Bay would weaken national security in part two.

Jake Towne

(1) Note: The Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico were also transferred to US sovereignty following the Treaty of Paris. The Filipinos were not granted self-rule and were consistently patronized as our “little brown brothers” by the President and many others. The Filipinos constantly rebelled against the American occupation, costing over 4,000 US soldiers’ lives and likely several hundred thousand Filipino dead from reprisals. Many Filipinos cooperated with the Japanese when they invaded the day of Pearl Harbor.  Although several details are incorrect, please see also Chalmers Johnson’s The Sorrows of Empire, pages 39-45.

Jake Towne is running for U.S. Congress in eastern Pennsylvania’s 15th district in 2010. Prior to returning home, he had been living in Shanghai as an engineer in the semiconductor industry for over 3 years. As part of defending liberty and championing the Constitution, Towne is offering the citizens in his area a novel form of accountable government called “Our Open Office.”

“Whenever you have truth it must be given with love, or the message and the messenger will be rejected.” – Gandhi

“You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” – Gandhi

These are just two of the many lessons it appears that Joseph Stack, aged 53, never learned. For those unaware, Mr. Stack set fire to his family’s home and crashed a private plane into the IRS Austin branch during the workday, killing one other person, injuring 13, and two of the injured are in critical condition. While full details surrounding this incident are still unclear, the FBI believes that his suicide note is genuine. Accounts from Stack’s friends indicate his acts were completely unexpected.
(more…)

Neither war has an end in sight, with Iraq holding at least 50,000 troops for an indefinite amount of time. The U.S. is stretching itself incredibly thin with these two wars during a time when people are suffering here at home. The cost of these wars, both in money and lives, will be devastating in the coming decade if they are not brought to a swift and immediate hault.

In an in-depth interview with the Times of London gearing up for the London Conference on Afghanistan later this week, CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus again cautioned that the war was going to “get harder before it gets easier.”

Likening the January 2007 surge in Iraq to President Obama’s December escalation, the general said he thought that the war in Afghanistan was going to take longer than the war in Iraq.

Perhaps even more troubling over eight years after the war began, Gen. Petraeus insisted he still hasn’t heard any talk of setting a timetable for the end of the war, and said any predictions would be “premature.” Several nations had hoped to use the London Conference to set out some sort of exit strategy for the seemingly endless conflict.

In fact, Petraeus suggested that the London Conference would not so much focus on setting a timetable for a transition, but on deciding “what transition actually means.” Though he provided little in the way of detail, it does suggest that officials have abandoned the pretense of starting the pullout in 2011.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/0…..than-iraq/

Great article that brings up the possibilities of more than just “Muslim extremism” in the case of Fort Hood. Like the article states, murder is murder, but the media and the government have skewed the causes and explanations of such a horrific incident.

On Thursday, November 5th, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan used handguns to fire upon fellow soldiers at Fort Hood Texas, killing 13 and wounding 30.

The base commander says soldiers who witnessed the shooting reported that Major Hasan shouted “Allah Akbar!” (God is great) before opening fire. Hasan, an American citizen and a practicing Muslim, himself was shot four times, and is presently hospitalized in stable condition. Originally it was thought that Hasan was killed, but later his survival was confirmed.

Hasan is a physician…a psychiatrist in fact. He recently worked at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Maryland, one of the primary places that wounded Gulf War soldiers are treated for horrific injuries. But those same wounded soldiers bring back deep mental wounds, and Hasan’s specialty was in counseling and helping soldiers suffering the mental anguish from war.

Major Hasan was scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan, and reports say that he was angry about his deployment.

Over the coming weeks and months, military investigators will work to determine Major Hasan’s motivation for the murders. If found competent, he will likely stand trial for the murders and injuries. However, you should expect that the findings will be “spun” in a way that absolves Washington and the military from any responsibility for their part in the murders.

Nothing in this article should be misconstrued as a tacit approval of Hanan’s acts. Murder is always murder, and killing 13 and wounding 30 is an horrific slaughter. No justification exists for this act.

Take a look at the rest of the article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/ori…..e10.1.html

“All Warfare is Deception… There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.” – Sun Tzu, circa 250 BC

Summary: I will not approve spending to extend this unconstitutional war of aggression against Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Congressman, I will drive for a rapid immediate and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan and redeployment to protect America’s sieve-like borders. I support increasing the reward for the capture of Osama Bin Laden forty times from $27 million to over $1 billion. I support issuing constitutional letters of marque to bring indicted terrorists to justice in a court of law.
(more…)

Since World War I, the U.S. has generally accepted a foreign policy of military involvement overseas. It almost seems as though we believe things would completely fall apart were we not to be militarily present around the world. However much we may accept these ideas, they do not represent the foreign policy of a free, sovereign, and leading nation.

It was the Treaty of Versailles that played a major part in the popularity and rise of Adolph Hitler in Germany. For starters, the U.S.’s national security was not threatened during WWI, yet we still felt the urge to get involved in the mess in Europe. The Treaty of Versailles was essentially created by all major countries involved with WWI, except Germany, in an effort to promote peace in Europe. The U.S. took a large role, as well as France and Britain, in creating and finalizing the Treaty.

In short, the Versailles Treaty brought enormous pressure and devastation upon Germany; forcing the country to reduce its army size, give up land, and pay for many of the rebuilding efforts in Europe. This is not to downplay Germany’s role in the war, but the Treaty did not give the German people a warm and fuzzy feeling about the outside countries dictating the rules to Germany. Adolph Hitler took advantage of the anger and resentment felt by Germans by uniting the country, partly by downplaying and attacking the outlines of the Versailles Treaty and the people behind it. Hitler came to power in 1933.

In 1930, Herbert Hoover and the U.S. Congress enacted the Smoot-Hawley Act, raising tariffs to record levels on thousands of items. Incredibly high tariffs led to decreased trade, and other countries enacted similar policy to retaliate and show resentment to the U.S. for heavily limiting trade. The U.S. was in the midst of starting a period of protectionist economic policy worldwide, after getting much more involved in world affairs in WWI and the Treaty of Versailles.

Ever since the Versailles Treaty and Smoot-Hawley Act, the U.S. has struggled to find the balance between forceful intervention overseas and domestic protectionism. Both policies are costly and counterproductive in the long run, but today we fail to recognize the dangers of foreign and domestic intervention.

Foreign intervention is simply built on bad principles. We do not carry the right to occupy other sovereign nations because we are a superpower. We do not have the moral authority or the constitutional authority to do this. Plus, it is costly in money, lives, and creates resentment towards the U.S., and in extreme cases will backfire in terrible measures such as terrorism.

Protectionism and isolationism are no better. Shutting down trade also leads to resentment, as we saw in the Great Depression, and keeping ourselves out of the rest of the world will greatly hold back the ultimate goals of world peace, friendship, and cooperation. If countries can’t freely exchange goods between each other without putting up a fight, that alone will be the beginning of major long-term problems.

Both interventionism and protectionism are shortsighted policies. Today we accept government-managed trade in the forms of NAFTA, NATO, etc., as free trade, but it is nothing more than a cover for more government interference and control in the marketplace. Pursuing either an interventionist foreign policy or protectionist domestic policy eventually leads to its own brand of isolationism, rarely serving the interests of the people.

As with domestic policy, the U.S. has maintained a very short-term view of how the world works. Truthful, sustainable, reliable cooperation will come by empowering people to trade and travel between countries. Governments have biases and lust for control that always seem to get in the way of creating a lasting and principled foreign policy. At least, this is how history has shown it.

Ever since the U.S. decided to get actively involved militarily in foreign problems, we have seen much bloodshed, war, and violence. The Vietnam War dragged on for years, but only when we pulled out our troops did the country start to recover to be the prosperous and expanding country that it is today. We have been in Korea for sixty years, yet the tension there is still high and lasting today. We continue to isolate ourselves from Cuba, despite the fall of the Soviet Empire years ago and no threat to our national security.

Fire does not disappear with more fire, yet even in many of the smallest skirmishes that occur in the world, violence is seen as the first retaliation. The 20th century saw many governments get forcefully involved in world affairs and it turned out to be the bloodiest period in the records of history.

Despite the high levels of interference from the U.N. and numerous governments (primarily the U.S.), the violence and wars continue unabated. Just look at the ongoing messes we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq is years from reaching a conclusion with U.S. presence. And don’t forget, we have military bases in nearly 130 different countries today.

Just think for a moment. How would we feel if China built several military bases in the U.S.? How would we react if Russia deployed even as little as three hundred soldiers on our soil? We would not accept it without putting up a serious fight. Is it so hard to comprehend that when we build permanent military bases in sovereign nations, sometimes even on their holy land, it won’t result in serious blowback?

It was in the first grade when I first learned the golden rule: treat others the way you want to be treated. This simple principle that six-year-olds are learning isn’t understood by our own government. Even the people who support military intervention today can’t pretend that these policies won’t have consequences.

Foreign policy is much too dangerous of an area to follow a flawed belief, principle, or argument. A lasting, sustainable, and prosperous foreign policy will come not from government force, but with honest free trade, strong diplomatic relations and discussions, and a relentless pursuit of friendship before force.