Gitmo Detainees Morph from ‘Enemy Combatants’ to ‘Islamist Community Organizers’

by Pam Meister

The news released last Friday – Friday being a popular day to dump negative or unpopular news because most Americans are thinking ahead to the weekend – was that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are no longer to be referred to as “enemy combatants:”

The Obama administration stopped calling Guantanamo inmates "enemy combatants" on Friday and incorporated international law as its basis for holding the prisoners while it works to close the facility.

The U.S. Justice Department filed court

papers outlining a further legal and linguistic shift from the anti-terrorism policies of Republican President George W. Bush, which drew worldwide condemnation as violations of human rights and international law.

"As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

Finally, a president who takes international law into account when considering the sovereignty and safety of American citizens! What’s good for, say, Germany, must be good for America, right? Especially when it comes to Germany’s milquetoastattempts to stem radical Islam in that nation. As Obama said in his official address to Berlin…er, speech by a private citizen during the campaign last July, “Ich bin ein Berliner!” I had no idea he would take his own rhetoric so seriously.

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum, however: European leaders may like the fact that Obama is planning on closing what Rush Limbaugh calls Club Gitmo, but they aren’t rushing to take the enemy combatants (since I don’t work for the government, I can get away with calling them by their rightful names) off of our hands, either. So much for the improved relations with European bureauweenies once The One™ replaced the cowboy.

I am curious to know what Attorney General Eric Holder meant, though, when he talked about how we should “govern detainees.” Since when are people suspected of killing or plotting to kill American citizens at home and abroad in the name of Islamic Jihad to be governed? Perhaps he meant to say “control detainees.” His boss must have been using the teleprompter that day.

But wait, there’s more:

The filing on Friday, in the cases of some 200 Guantanamo inmates seeking a court review of their detention, explains the standards of President Barack Obama's administration for holding terrorism suspects without court review.

It said those at Guantanamo will no longer be held on the exclusive basis of the president's authority as commander in chief.

On his radio show last Friday evening, Mark Levin wondered:

“If the commander in chief of the armed forces can’t use the phrase ‘enemy combatant’ because he needs Congress to tell him it’s okay, or he needs some international law from the Hague or somewhere to tell him it’s okay, what the hell is that? Now, the guy’s power hungry when it comes to controlling domestic affairs, and when it comes to foreign affairs he can’t wait to give the executive’s power away?”

That’s a good question. But as Andrew McCarthy points out, the administration had to be seen as doing something to appease the far-left base that helped sweep Obama into office:

Obama wants to have the advantage of — and take credit for the security provided by — the Bush post-9/11 policies. However, he has a rabid left-wing base that rejects the notion that there is a war and wants terrorism returned to the courts (and by the way, if/when that happens, that base will immediately go back to arguing that the court proceedings are inherently unfair, which is what it did for the eight years before 9/11). Throughout the campaign, Obama stirred this base — which consequently voted in droves for him — by trashing the policies he now wants to leave in place. So now he is in a quandary: "How do I keep these policies while preventing a revolt from these crazy people — er, I mean, my voters?"

[…]

Essentially, we're no longer going to call our captives "enemy combatants" ... but we're still going to detain people without trial, and Obama claims the unilateral authority to decide who gets detained.

In other words, having seen what’s actually at stake, Obama doesn’t want to act too rashly, but he has to keep stirring up batches of fresh Kool Aid for the faithful until he can figure out what the heck he’s doing. And whether he really knows what he’s doing is questionable at best, considering the success of the first 50 or so days in office.

We still don’t know what the Obama administration plans to call these detainees. Here are a few suggestions:

• Undocumented freedom fighters (shamelessly stolen from Andrew McCarthy)
• American citizens-in-waiting
• Members of Michael Moore’s fan club
• Islamist community organizers

Regardless of the real intention behind this change in wording, how is such public wishy washiness to be viewed by our enemies? Let’s look at some of the highlights thus far:

• Obama’s weak national security picks
• Obama wrote a mash note to the Russians begging for help with Iran. In exchange, he’ll throw Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus.
• Obama plans to decrease military spending by 25%

Somehow, I don’t think the Russians, the Iranians, the Chinese and other assorted terror entities are quaking in their boots. In fact, I think I hear champagne flutes clinking.

I saw a t-shirt with Obama’s face on it that said “Welcome Back Carter.” Slap on a cardigan and he’s just about there. Can our nation’s security afford what some are calling the second Carter administration? My guess is no. But I hope I’m wrong.

Research Center's Role Faces Scrutiny

By Carol D. Leonnig

Advice From Murtha Allies Guided Funding Requests, Documents Show

A Pennsylvania defense research center regularly consulted with two "handlers" close to Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) as it collected nearly $250 million in federal funding through the lawmaker, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post and sources familiar with the funding requests. The center then channeled a significant portion of the funding to companies that were among Murtha's campaign supporters.

The two advisers included a lobbyist for PMA Group, a firm with close ties to Murtha that is the subject of a federal investigation into whether it made illegal contributions by reimbursing donors to the Pennsylvania lawmaker and other members of Congress. The Electro-Optics Center also relied on advice from a longtime Murtha friend who now works on the congressman's appropriations staff.

Federal agents are also exploring how the center obtained its funds after they received dozens of internal documents last year. It is unclear whether the records have become a central focus of the Justice Department's probe, but they open a window into a largely hidden process in which powerful lawmakers can direct funds to pet projects.

The Electro-Optics Center, created by Murtha a decade ago under the auspices of Pennsylvania State University, was envisioned as a way to spur a new high-tech industry and create jobs in economically depressed western Pennsylvania. Last year, the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh received a packet of budget materials, memos and e-mails from inside the center documenting how closely its managers conferred with PMA about the best ways to get its projects funded in the federal budget, according to two sources familiar with the information.

The center was supposed to help contractors in researching laser and optics technology to improve products for the military, and center officials said contractors were supposed to benefit from some of the federal funds.

Unlike in traditional earmarks -- funding for specific projects publicly requested by members of Congress -- most of the money for the center came through a budget maneuver known as a "plus-up." The process for this kind of earmark allows lawmakers to add money to an existing program in the budget without public disclosure. The center sought $120 million in this type of money for itself and other companies in 2006 alone, according to the records.

Several of the center's partners hired PMA for lobbying. In the 2008 budget, PMA clients received $299 million in defense earmarks through Murtha and other lawmakers. PMA and its clients gave $775,000 in contributions to Murtha in the last election cycle.

A PMA lobbyist and a close associate of Murtha's helped make many key decisions about what research and which contractors would get the federal money flowing to the center, according to the documents.

Typically, the center's director, Karl Harris, worked with the lobbyist to prepare funding wish lists, which were described in some of the records as "requests for Mr. Murtha to carry." The requests were sent to the congressman's staff, according to the records. The lists detailed how much, and where in the budget, money should be added for projects desired by the center and the contractors.

According to center records and two sources, Harris consulted regularly on the center's overall funding requests with the two men he jokingly referred to in the office as his "handlers": the PMA lobbyist, Daniel Cunningham, and Murtha friend Charlie T. Horner. Cunningham, who golfed with Murtha and occasionally drove him home to Pennsylvania from Washington, was part of the lobbying firm formed by former Murtha aide Paul Magliocchetti. Horner, a former veteran and Defense Department official, was a paid consultant for Electro-Optics, as well as for Lockheed Martin.

Harris did not return calls, but his staff referred questions to Penn State. Edward Liszka, the university's head of defense-related research, said the university was very involved in reviewing the center's research work and doubts that a PMA lobbyist played any significant role. The university receives a percentage of the center's research funds for administration, and Liska said that is a routine arrangement for academic institutions.

Patrick Dorton, a PMA spokesman, said Cunningham occasionally consulted with Harris to provide correct information about PMA clients.

The records show how the center planned to distribute money it received for some research projects. For a $2.5 million optical sensor project, for example, $1.8 million would be split between Boeing-SVS and Kuchera Industries. Kuchera, a Windber, Pa., company that has received $50 million in earmarks from Murtha, is a focus of the ongoing federal investigation, according to sources familiar with the probe. Company representatives have said Kuchera will not comment on the investigation.

Thomas Spellissy, a former Defense Department budget official who once worked as a consultant for Optical Systems Technology Inc., one of the companies that received funding through Electro-Optics, said he regularly fielded Murtha's requests for "plus-ups" when he was at the Defense Department. The vast majority, he said, were good projects that helped U.S. troops in the field. In some cases, however, this type of earmark wastes money, he said, but it was not feasible for him to turn them down.

"A staffer for a congressman says, 'I need you to accept this money for sensors, a couple million,' " Spellissy said. "If I said no, he can turn around and say I won't support you on this other thing you really want. I could say no -- then his boss calls the general to complain about me."

"Mr. Cunningham's review of the requests compiled by the EO Center was intended to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information pertaining to the projects for which PMA clients were seeking funding consideration," Dorton said. Matt Mazonkey, a spokesman for Murtha's office, said the EOC has received no earmarks since Horner joined Murtha's staff last spring. He declined to comment on how the center received its funding but said the congressman is proud of its work.

"The Penn State Electro-Optics Center has created an alliance of over 350 companies and universities that the government can quickly tap to rapidly respond to emerging needs within electro-optics," he said. "This successful partnership has saved the Defense Department over $1 billion in just the past few years."

Liszka also cited the savings for the government and called the center "a leader in electro-optics technology."

Each year, Harris prepared long spreadsheets that included detailed descriptions of desired projects and how they should be funded in the budget -- which line item, through which federal department and the specific dollar amount, the records show. The documents also described whether the center or a defense company would receive the funding, and gave the name and number of the Defense Department budget official the center should contact to make sure the money was delivered.

The requests for funding for specific contractors often highlighted the company's lobbying firm. The names of PMA lobbyists and contact numbers, for example, are noted next to requests for three of the companies.

In addition to the $80 million the center requested for itself in 2006, it submitted $40 million in projects described as "company requests of Mr. Murtha via the EOC" -- corporate funds that were to come first to the center. Of that, $30 million was listed to benefit Northrop Grumman, mostly to support its work on aviator night-vision goggles.

Northrop Grumman spokesman Randy Belote said his company had partnered with the EOC in some night-vision research but had not asked any lawmakers for funding for the projects.

A Victory for Marine LtCol Chessani

ANN ARBOR, MI – Late this morning, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals sitting in Washington DC, released their unanimous decision upholding the dismissal of charges against Marine Lt. Col Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of apparent Unlawful Command Influence. But the case may not be over yet.

For the last four years, LtCol Chessani has been investigated and prosecuted for his involvement in the so called “Haditha Massacre” – a massacre that never happened. A 22-year veteran, Chessani has served three tours of duty in Iraq. He served in the First Persian Gulf War and in Panama. At the time of the November 19, 2005 Haditha incident, he was the Battalion Commander of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines (“The Thundering Third”) – one of the most decorated units in the history of the Marine Corps.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, observed, “LtCol Chessani, one of the most effective combat commanders we had in Iraq, was a made political scapegoat by the civilians in the Pentagon to appease the antiwar politicians and a liberal media. In fact, we now know that the story of the ‘massacre’ that prompted the Haditha prosecutions was a headline in a Time news article instigated by insurgent propaganda operatives.”

Continued Thompson, “This nation has come to the point where we can’t call terrorists captured on the battlefield ‘enemy combatants.’ We release the terrorists out of Guantanamo and prosecute the military our country placed in harms’ way to defend us.”
Robert Muise, an attorney with the Law Center, a national public interest law firm, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, argued the case on behalf of LtCol Chessani. The Law Center has been defending LtCol Chessani throughout his prosecution alongside his detailed Marine lawyers, LtCol John Shelburne and Captain Jeff King. Captain Kyle Kilian, a Marine appellate defense lawyer, also assisted in the appeal.

LtCol Chessani is the highest ranking officer facing criminal charges as a result of the much-publicized and ill-described “Haditha massacre.” The criminal charges against him stem from a legitimate combat action taken by four enlisted Marines in his command after they were ambushed by insurgents in Haditha, Iraq, on November 19, 2005. Their actions resulted in the deaths of several ambushing insurgents. Unfortunately and tragically, several civilians were also killed in the house-clearing operation.

Even though LtCol Chessani wasn’t present during the incident, he was criminally charged with failing to launch a full investigation into the incident. If convicted, he faces 2 ½ years imprisonment, dismissal from the Corps, and loss of all of his retirement pay.

The essential holding of the military appellate court was as follows: “We are convinced the Government failed to meet its burden of demonstrating, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the proceedings were untainted by the appearance of UCI (Unlawful Command Influence). We are similarly convinced that an objective, disinterested observer, fully informed of all the facts and circumstances, would harbor significant doubt about the fairness of this proceeding.”

This decision could be appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) and then even to the U.S. Supreme Court. The government has yet to announce whether it will pursue another appeal.

The Thomas More Law Center defends America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office, +1-202-406-0887 Cell

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.

SOURCE The American Legion

Click here for additional information