A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
All Posts Information May 26 2009
— By CJ
I hate to beat the drum about a book I recently read titled “The Islamist” by Ed Hussain, but this video is just the beginning of our problems. It was taken on April 15, 2009 in New York City. This is not just a single man or small group of men bending the Muslim religion to create hate in this country, it’s a concerted effort to literally bring down our government and learning institutions. Don’t believe me? Buy the book and then watch this video again. Notice the similarities of what happened in Britain years ago and what we’re now facing in this country?
This is video should be raising a LOT of eyebrows.
(51) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
to Anonn, thank you. i thought so. i just want a clear picture of his
Military Dating Scams (More Nigerian Scammers)
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
[UPDATE] The "Face" of Military Dating Scams - The Wall of Shame
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
2nd amendment
2009 milblog conference
afghanistan
Army
barack obama
cesar laurean
clayton murwin
concealed carry
dadt
depression
don't ask don't tell
Equal Opportunity
fobbit
fort hood
gays in the military
Great Americans
gun control
huntsville city schools
iraq
kandahar
maria lauterbach
medal of honor
michael patrick mcmanus
michael yon
military
Nigerian Scammers
OEF
OIF
post traumatic stress disorder
president obama
PTSD Perspectives
ranger up
school uniforms
second amendment
silver star
soldiers angels
stolen valor
stolen valor act
suicide
suicide prevention
Terrorism
the frontlines
the frontlines weekly update brief
veterans administration
veterans day
sue05
Well toast my Wheaties!! Isnt he lucky he lives under the blanket of Freedom that the people hes ranting against have fought and died for!! How lucky is he that he lives in OUR country where he is allowed to say the hateful nasty things he is saying and he’s protected by law to do it? How lucky is he that he lives in OUR country where he has the right to practice freely the religion of hate that he is practicing. I often wonder why these people dont go to the Islamic countries that they feel are so good and live there instead of coming here and hating us. Go live in Pakistan or Afghanistan if its such a great place. I’m sure the Taliban will welcome them with open arms.
I don’t understand how we can allow such rantings on public streets, assaulting people with their lunacy. Freedom of Speech is one thing, you are entitled to an opinion, but it does not give you the right to call people to Jihad against our government in the public square. Where does the line get drawn.
DanM
I think it is perfectly fine for him to say and promote what he wants, but the line must be drawn at ACTION.
We are free to believe any religion we want, but we aren’t necessarily free to practice those beliefs. If he believes that the overthrow of the government is necessary for the practice of his religion, then he will lose his freedom (be jailed) for his treason.
If he is hoping for sharia law in the US, he better not hold his breath. He seems to be an extremist, and that can be found in many religions. Being extremely fundamentalist whether you are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc is always a recipe for craziness.
Critical Facts
His rantings are no more dangerous than the current rantings of Dickus Cheney – he is just preaching to a different brand of sheep!
NY-David
No, Dick Cheny’s statements are based on researchable fact. Whether you agree with him or not, at least the substance is there. this guy is trying to preach to the choir and make a few bucks at it. he’s a sidewalk hack and nothing more.
NY-David
CJ
Well, David you responded before I deleted just more CF ad hominem stupidity, so I guess his comment stays. Thanks for telling it like it is even though you aren’t a Dick Cheney supporter, unlike CF who suffers from some extreme version of BDS that impairs his ability to say anything rational or noteworthy.
Critical Facts
Well, David, it appears we agree. You say the dude is a sidewalk hack, and I agree. That makes Dick Cheney a sidewalk hack, too. His choir has shrunk to the remaining few who will go to their graves still thinking Bush was a stand up guy.
cj, Thanks for not calling me stupid, etc., when I help fund the cookie drives. That would really hurt!
CJ
Your Bush derangement and continue drum beat is what is stupid about you CF and always will be. Regardless of what good or bad you do for our cookie (which I appreciate), you’re still a partisan hack to me who can’t see reality of anything other than blaming Bush. I’m not a politician and I don’t bow to people who support me and my projects, no matter how much it’s needed and appreciated. I call it like I see it.
Critical Facts
cj:
I guess I call it like I see it, too. I do, however, find comfort in numbers, and right now, there are far more folks in this country that agree with my political leaning than disagree. If that makes me a stupid, partisan hack, then, well, so be it.
Critical Facts
Hmmmm. Speaking of Dick Cheney, I wonder what he will have to say about Gen. Petraeus’ recent admission that the US violated the Geneva Conventions?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/petraeus-says-us-violated_b_209215.html
Oh, that’s right, I and all others who criticize Bush/Cheney for feeling their actions cost our country so dearly are just stupid and partisan.
CJ
CF, you mean the absolutely explosive admission by Petraeus that what happened in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo in 2003 violated the Geneva Conventions?! Say it isn’t so!! Oh, the horror of this “recent admission”. What a tool!
CF, quick question for you. Do you think we should be troubled with the Geneva Conventions at all or should we abide by them?
Critical Facts
cj:
I think we should abide by the conventions; otherwise, we might as well join the terrorists in a race to the bottom. Without a moral compass, we have no compass.
CJ
And I agree with you, so maybe you’ll join me in opposing Obama’s plan to try detainees and unlawful enemy combatants from Gitmo in our courts instead of military tribunals since he’s violating the Geneva Conventions by doing so. After all, “we should abide by the conventions; otherwise, we might as well join the terrorists in a race to the bottom. Without a moral compass, we have no compass.”
Your words, not mine. So, you’ll join us in opposing this illegal position right?
Critical Facts
Where does the GC prohibit trial as proposed by Obama?
CJ
You’re the Geneva Conventions expert, you tell us! I’ll give you a hint: I’ve already written about it more than once. But, I’d rather you educate yourself because you’ll never believe anything I say that may cause you to violate your own principles and standards of disagreeing with a liberal!
Critical Facts
Just identify the provision, please.
CJ
Article 84
Critical Facts
Article 84 of the Third Geneva Convention
A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
Well, cj, you may have something there. But I do take note that your article back on May 21 misquoted Article 84 – you failed to cite the remainder of the section ” … unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.”
Accordingly, the question is not whether military courts equate with civil courts, they do not. Rather, the question is do American laws permit our courts to try US soldiers for the same crimes alleged to have been perpetrated by detainees? In many cases, I suspect the answer is yes.
CJ
CF, you need to go look at a dictionary. I didn’t misquote anything. I wrote it as written. Now you ask the question, “do American laws permit our courts to try US soldiers for the same crimes alleged to have been perpetrated by detainees?” You then answer “yes.” Let’s see if you know how to follow your own rules. I think you put it like this: “Just identify the provision, please.” If you’ll just point us all here to the law that says our courts can try combat detainees, we’d all be much smarter and I would actually be forced to withdraw my comments that the GC was violated. Just give us the, um, “critical facts” if you will. No need to hurry, I’ll wait…but I won’t hold my breath.
Critical Facts
cj:
First, you did “misquote” Article 84 through omission. The article is quite clear – there is an exception to the statement you quoted. By selectively quoting only the portion of Article 84 that supports your point, while leaving the rest out, you misquoted the source. Sorry, but I am thinking like a lawyer here.
Second, you will note that I gave you credit where credit is due. I think you do have a point; albeit the point arises through the exception and whether it applies. The language is by far situational dependent. Realistically, I would say that some crimes committed by service persons are addressable in civilian courts and others not. The recent case of Laurean (sp??) is a case in point. He will be tried by a civilian court, notwithstanding his military status when the crime was committed and now. Variations on this theme and the circumstances attending the capture of gtmo detainees are quite varied; trial by civil court through Article 84 will most assuredly apply to some if not many of these cases.
Finally, if you strive to run for political office, as you have mentioned before, I would recommend getting some practice looking at both sides of the issue. Otherwise, you come across as the same partisan hack you accuse me of being.
CJ
An omission is not a misquote. A misquote is “a quotation that is incorrect” and nothing I said was incorrect. However, an omission is “something left out, not done, or neglected.” Two very different things, but if you want to wave your magic wand of deception by diverting everyone towards this difference, fine. I am guilty of omission, not a misquote. But, the omission didn’t matter because it does not apply in this case (at least until you prove me wrong, your honor).
If you were thinking like a lawyer, you’d be able to tell me what law allows us to try enemy combatants in US Courts, a violation of Geneva Conventions. You must not be that good of a lawyer, or maybe you’re just a good slip and fall lawyer and not much more if you can’t back up your own argument.
Lauren is not an enemy combatant to the United States. He is a murderer who committed his crimes on American soil. We weren’t at war with Mexico where he was found, so the provision doesn’t apply in this case. There are cases where crimes committed by military members are tried by civilian courts. The military is also able to try him in military courts without threats of double jeopardy. But, again, we’re talking about apples and oranges. Only in YOUR eyes do US troops equal terrorists. Okay, your eyes and the terrorists’ eyes, sorry.
As for your last paragraph, I think I’ve just proven that the person that has trouble looking at both sides of issue is you. You played right into my hands as I gave you the perfect opportunity to be bi-partisan and admit that Obama was wrong in seeking to have the detainees tried in US courts. But, ever the partisan hack, you backtracked and realized that you couldn’t possible go against your Messiah, our President.
I have a well established record of calling it like I see it, good or bad, regardless of party. You, on the other hand, have never said anything good about Bush and nothing bad about Obama. Who really needs “some practice looking at both sides of the issue” here? Remember that as you point at me, there are four more fingers pointing back at you.
You still haven’t provided anything to justify trying detainees in civilian courts and supporting your argument. You asked me to back up my claim and I did. You claim to be a lawyer and tout some sort of law or laws that exist that would allow these trials, but fail to provide said law. They did teach you research during your two-week correspondence course certification in legal theory didn’t they? Use it. Prove me wrong. Otherwise, you have nothing of substance to say. You asked me for a provision and I gave it to you. Now I’m asking you to back up your point. Nothing more. Just prove me wrong. You won’t be able to but by all means don’t let that stop you from looking and proving to everyone here that you’re smarter than I am. After all, I don’t even have a legal degree. I’m just a partisan hack too, right?
NY-David
Not for anything, but there is a guy up on Park Avenue screaming passages out of the bible for an hour passing by.
this idiot is preaching to a very muslim area of (I think) Manhattan as I’m trying to look at the buildings to determine. He asks for monetary donations, but then decries those who put “on a silk tie and go to work for…” business.
NY-David
johnnymags-NY
yeah, we pay as much attention to them as we do the Greenpeace Gestapo…move along nothing to see here…or how about those guys around Times Square preaching that original Jews were from Africa…it’s street huckster entertainment.
Mike
what exactly is he twisting? if you read the Quran and other texts by Islamic scholars, imams, and shiekhs, he is not twisting anything…
it’s folks in the West who keep trying to portray Islam as a religion of peace that are twisting it – this guy is just preaching Islam…Muhammid spread Islam by the sword, he was a warrior, he killed many, that is his legacy & all Muslims must emulate him…
who is and who isn’t “innocent” when it comes to waging jihad? anyone who opposes Islam is not innocent…once you start opposing Islam then you become a legitimate target
CJ
As a Christian, I am also acutely aware that the Bible can be misinterpreted the same way. Look at the Crusades for a perfect example. There are people like the Westboro Baptist Church idiots in “Christianity”. “Christians” have blown up abortion clinics in the name of Christ. Have you actually read the Koran from cover to cover? If you had, you’d see that the Bible and Koran are quite similar.
Sorry, but not all Muslims believe what you assume they believe here. I’ve met too many to buy into it. If that were the case, they wouldn’t need to be preaching all over the place. They’d be taking over. These Muslims wouldn’t be getting banned from Muslim nations either. Try to check your bigotry at the door next time and open your eyes to a little bit of reality.
Terri
Well put Sue. I couldn’t have said it better myself. I’ve often wondered the very same things …. if this country is so horrible, then what the heck are they doing here?
CJ
There’s actually a very explanation for both of you. The reason they are not in their native lands is because their brand of Islam was outlawed. The Arab governments recognized it for what it was – terrorism. The reason they are here is because they use our freedoms against us. They know that if we try to shut them down, they’ll claim racism and bigotry and that will serve as a call to arms. Instead of just outlawing extremism like theirs, we play politically correct. Interesting, considering we burnt down the Branch Davidian compound and killed dozens of those people for NOTHING, but when it comes to people who actually SAY they want to kill us we treat them with kid gloves.
The other reason they are here is because they want US to change. They don’t want to be changed. Their sole purpose is bring about the Islamic state and turn every government into such. They want to bring about the return of the Caliphate.
Again, you HAVE to read the Islamist and many of the things that they are doing will open your eyes wide.
sue05
Oh CJ, I’m surprised at you that you didnt catch my sarcasm you know me better than that. I know full well that they would NOT be welcomed with open arms by the very countries they named. I know that they are using our system and our freedoms against us. And I WILL try to get hold of a copy of the book and read it.
CJ
Oh, I gotcha, but remember that liberals don’t understand sarcasm so I had to respond on their behalf.
sue05
gigglin
Eamonn S.
The big thing (among the many) that stuck out to me was the phrase, “Killing muslims in the Swat Valley who only want to worship Allah… right. The Taliban just wants to “worship Allah”? WTF?
Ask anyone that lived under taliban rule in Afghanistan and see how much they liked it.
Khaled M. Abou El Fadl, in his book “The Great Theft” (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Theft-Wrestling-Islam-Extremists/dp/0060563397) references the taliban often and how horrible they were. He also points out that democracy and islam can actually co-exist in a peaceful environment and explains how and why it can be that way.
Maybe the guy in the video should “branch out” a little and read that book.
lela
Amazing! As a vet, I’m a big supporter of the right to free speech; but as a lawyer, I understand there are some limits (you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater). I know that political speech is the most protected type of speech there is, but in my book this guy’s call to forget democracy, forget secular government, and forget anything but violent struggle comes pretty close to yelling “fire.” You’re right, CJ, this guy may have a right to speak, we need to listen to what he’s saying, read between the lines, and be prepared to fight back if we want to preserve our way of life and our freedoms.
NY-David
Recall that the descendants of the Pilgrims initiated the Witch Trial. This was part of their attempt to implement religious-based law.
History does repeat…
NY-David
Mickey
Someone take him out…. he just declared war (struggle) on us. Where is the CIA or FBI or help of any kind to take care of this?
NY-David
Cool your jets, Mickey. 1oo times a day, people declare war on us. Let’s fight the ones who really mean it instead of swinging at every pitch.
NY-David
CJ
David, if you think that guy is just bloviating in the streets, click the link to “The Islamist” and buy yourself a copy. Some pitches need to be swung at!
NY-David
Just bought it for $6 off Amazon. ya gotta love the used book section.
NY-David
dj
No worries here, not the first time and certainly won’t be the last time we see these sort of videos. Anyone remember Ali and the groups he was involved with? Its unfortunate that anyone feels this way but its the reality of the world that we live in. You’re crazy if you don’t feel that fbi is on top of this, they just busted 3 guys like this last week I believe.
NY-David
I am by no means a GC expert, but I will hazard a guess that the better court will not be questioned later on. The court that tried Sadam was done so that later on it would never be questioned that he got a fair trial. Flawed in their ways, the US court system is a good one and can hold its own.
NY-David
CJ
This isn’t about how good our courts are. This is about adhering to the Geneva Conventions that CF says “we should abide by.” I know our courts are good, but that isn’t the point. Saddam isn’t the point either. You either support the Conventions or you don’t. He said he does, but when I pointed out that Obama is violating them, he predictably started backpedaling.
I like to think I am a GC expert. I have to study them and have for the past eight years since beginning this profession. I am required to uphold the Conventions and laws of war and ensure my Soldiers understand them as well.
Saddam was tried by his own people, as he should have been. He wasn’t picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant and he wasn’t tried as a war criminal. He was tried for murder and mistreatment of his own people.
It doesn’t matter how good our court system is, the fact remains that it is illegal to try any Gitmo detainees in our courts. Just like torture is illegal according to the Conventions, so is this. Are we now going to piecemeal which provisions we should follow and which we should violate – a charge the left has levied against Bush for years?!
Critical Facts
cj:
Your arguments would read better if you set aside your perceived need for cynicism and condescension. Such might also help you focus on what matters.
For example, you ask me to identify what law allows detainees to be tried in US courts. That is a far cry from where the discussion started, which was a discussion of Article 84 and its supposed preclusive effect in trying detainees in us courts. You said Article 84 provides a flat preclusion; I said it did not. You pointed to a statement in Article 84 that supports your position; I pointed to the remainder of the sentence you quoted that provides an exception.
I never said a law exists that allows US courts to try detainees – indeed, following your opinion re the power of the executive during times of war, no such law is needed. What I did, say, however, is that Article 84 does not, by its express terms, prohibit US courts from trying detainees – there is an exception in Article 84 that permits such to occur, so long as US soldiers can be tried for the same offense – and I provided an example of what might be considered such an offense.
Bottom line, your argument above misses the point – which is the language of Article 84. In fact, your argument appears to include most of the evasive techniques you so often accuse me of employing – sometimes with justification – when I comment here at ASP.
Regardless, I hope you and your family have a great Sunday.
Critical Facts
Hmmm. Not sure why the above comment appeared here and not at the bottom of the list in order of time posted ….
CJ
My cynicism is built around your hypocrisy. Allow me to use YOUR words yet again against you. Your comments about Cheney “were a far cry from where the discussion started which WASN’T a discussion about Article 84!”
Article 84 came up because you asked for the provision. The law came up because I asked for the provision. My position is supported by the Convention. Your position is supported by ….*crickets….*crickets….NOTHING.
So, what you’re saying is that the President can use Executive Power to break the law (violate the conventions) in a time of war? Am I reading that right? Are you agreeing with me on this?
And the example you provided is not accurate. You use a criminal act that occurred on US soil as justification to illegally try detainees who were captured illegally on a foreign battle field.
My argument may “miss the point” in YOUR mind, but your argument still has no point. And yet, I’m not the lawyer here educating YOU about it. Interesting. So, let me ask again in ways maybe a lawyer can understand:
For the benefit of everyone here – so that CF doesn’t get confused about omissions and misquotes again – this is what the first paragraph of Article 84 of the Third Geneva Conventions:
A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
Again, I ask you to point to the “existing laws” that allow this or a case where a member of the armed forces committed the same offences as the Gitmo detainees and will be tried in a US – not military – court. Or, just make it easy on yourself and admit that Obama is breaking the law by trying detainees in US courts. It’s not that difficult. Come on, you can do it! You can admit that Obama was wrong about ONE thing can’t you? Or are you still looking for a way to blame Bush/Cheney for Obama’s poor decision making?
Critical Facts
I refer you to the existing laws that allow Laurean to be tried by civil courts. Again, cj, don’t allow your disdain for my positions to interfere with your debate skills and logic. You are just burying yourself deeper in the pile each time.
CJ
So you’re just thick then? Laurean committed an offense in THIS country. The offense was committed OFF base. He was NOT charged with the same offenses as those detained at Gitmo! You’re peddling again. You’re trying to deflect from the truth and making yourself into more of an ass in the process.
I have no disdain for your positions. I have disdain for YOU. Let me quote again:
unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
Again, show us where that has happened and where our existing laws “expressly permit” trying them in civil courts and I’ll shut up. Or just admit that Obama is violating the Geneva Conventions, the same ones that you say we should abide by! This isn’t rocket science, Mr. Legal Man.
Critical Facts
cj:
The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 provides statutory authority whereby a member of the armed forces may be tried in American civilian courts or concurrently with military courts under various circumstances.
While I appreciate the law is intended to fill a loophole regarding crimes committed by contractors, the scope of the law is broader than that and, as stated above, applies to members of the armed forces, too, under various circumstances.
CJ
Well, that’s a nice try, but the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 specifically states,
“Nothing in this chapter may be construed to deprive a court-martial, military commission, provost court, or other military tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction with respect to offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by a court-martial, military commission, provost court, or other military tribunal.”
The law also states that military members will NOT be sent back to the United States except under specific instances to be tried. Again, what “particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war” are troops being accused of? I wonder if this is a good time to mention that I took nearly two years of formal law education before getting disgusted with the profession.
Basically, even when presented with the obvious, you can’t find something to fault your Messiah for? It’s just that simple and obvious that you have no desire for truth, just partisanship.
Critical Facts
cj:
First, concurrent jurisdiction means shared jurisdiction or separate jurisdictions between separate courts – here, the federal courts and the military courts. Your read on the meaning of concurrent jurisdiction is simply wrong – it does not deprive federal courts of jurisdiction; indeed, it expressly confers jurisdiction on federal courts.
Your two year short court on the law, I doubt, delved into such technical details of federal court jurisdiction. It is complicated. Bottom line, is I have provided precisely what you challenged me to provide – statutory authority to try US soldiers in federal courts.
PS. Do you see how I write my comments without the constant need to condescend and belittle? You should give it a try.
CJ
I write condescending comments to YOU CF. You’re special and deserve special attention. I belittle those that can’t see past the nose on their own face. Plus, I’m an a-hole, so sue me. As for my training, I’ve only had two years of “formal” education, but I’ve been studying law well beyond that. I’m not a practicing or licensed lawyer and hope to never be. I have integrity.
You provided no such thing. You still have not met the provision of Article 84 that soldiers must have committed the “particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.”
Critical Facts
Based on the above commentary, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. The statute is plain on its face and confers jurisdiction on the federal courts to try soldiers for crimes committed while on active duty. If that is not being able to see past my own nose, then so be it. Your condescending comments to the contrary, I’ll still donate to the cookie drives because that is a great thing that you and others here do.
SSgtJ
Aren’t we talking about enemy combatants not US Soldiers here?
How does that statute that talks about our soldiers, cover enemy combatants?
sue05
Seems to me that while CJ is studying the laws, someone else is studying the loopholes which is what makes lawyers so disdained. As the SSG said, we are talking about enemy combatants here, not US Soldiers but as I read it, that law that allows for the trial of US Soldiers says that they can only be tried in civilian courts when they are no longer in service when the charges are filed. Then they are to be tried in a civilian court, but can also be concurrently tried in a military court. But the law itself was written to cover military contractors those working for the DOD etc, IE civilians, such as the people involved in the shooting incident in Iraq from Kellog & Brown I believe it was. (I might have gotten the company name wrong, I apologize) But the writing was pretty clear.