Protecting Americans

The Justice Department has named a Special Prosecutor, John Durham, to investigate possible lawbreaking by CIA personnel and contractors during their interrogation of terrorist suspects. The CIA’s Inspector General referred the cases under investigation to the Justice Department for possible prosecution during the George W. Bush administration, but Justice declined to become involved at that time. This action follows what I previously recommended as an appropriate way to move forward with respect to holding people accountable for criminal behavior without prosecuting those who acted in good faith that their conduct did not violate the law.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney castigated the government for appointment the prosecutor, contending that the step would weaken protections for Americans.

Violating Constitutional safeguards of American freedoms to protect Americans from physical harms is a bad trade-off. I prefer to take my stand with Patrick Henry, who famously declared, “Give me liberty, or give me death,” rather than with Dick Cheney. I, for one, do not want to live a society that emulates Orwell’s vision of “Big Brother” in his book, 1984. That people would compete with one another to be participants in reality TV shows that broadcast their lives 24/7 is incomprehensible to me. Freedom, not being a celebrity, is my cherished value and the reason that I proudly served in the U.S. armed forces.

Similarly, I am concerned that the Obama administration has continued a Bush administration policy of allowing Border Patrol and Immigration personnel to seize and to search, without probably cause, electronic media (cameras, ipods, computers, etc.) that travelers bring into the U.S. This appears a prima facie violation of the Constitutional safeguard against warrant-less searches. Safety without freedom is worth nothing.

Jesus also chose freedom above safety, refusing to comply with Roman mandates and Jewish conventions, insisting on fidelity to his own values.

U.S. military leaders now report to Obama administration officials that the U.S. has insufficient troops in Afghanistan to accomplish the mission. That public announcement is surprising only in its timing. The U.S. has never had enough troops in Afghanistan to end the Taliban troop. Afghanistan has approximately the same population as Iraq, is geographically larger, and poses greater physical challenges because of its topography. As is obvious from the current surge in violence in Iraq, the U.S. did not actually pacify that country nor secure its long-term security. The much-touted troop surge in Iraq simply “bought” the temporary cooperation of some factions, an arrangement that has generally fallen apart with the diminished U.S. role and funding. According to the Army’s new counterinsurgency manual, efficacious counterinsurgency operations in either Iraq or Afghanistan would require approximately one-half million U.S. military personnel, a level of involvement politically unpalatable in the U.S.