RUTHFULLY YOURS

Was the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the United States a crime or an act of war? In 2009, Rosa Brooks, a professor of law at Georgetown, was brought into Barack Obama’s Pentagon to ponder that question and others like it. Her conclusion about the 9/11 attack: Its legal status is “effectively indeterminate.”

That is a lawyerly finding and not one that is especially useful to policy makers. But such maddening ambiguity is precisely the problem we now face, argues Ms. Brooks in “How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything.” Many of the categories with which we think about national security, she says, have become obsolete.

In a world where our enemies do not belong to armies or wear uniforms—where a weapon can be a roadside bomb or a computer virus—confusion reigns. Do the laws of war apply, allowing for the liberal use of force? Or must we adhere to the laws of peacetime, which constrict the application of force within a web of legal procedures? “We don’t know,” Ms. Brooks writes, “if drone strikes are lawful wartime acts, or murders.” We don’t know “when it is acceptable for the U.S. government to lock someone up indefinitely, without charge or trial.” We don’t know “if mass government surveillance is reasonable or unjustifiable.”
ENLARGE
Photo: wsj
How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything

By Rosa Brooks
Simon & Schuster, 438 pages, $29.95

Thanks to the haziness of our present situation, Ms. Brooks concludes, we are losing “our collective ability to place meaningful restraints on power and violence.” Decisions taken first by George W. Bush and then by Barack Obama, she writes, “have allowed the rules and habits of wartime to pervade ordinary life.” She cites “the militarization of U.S. police forces,” evident in the proliferation of SWAT teams armed with equipment intended for war zones; the blanket of secrecy thrown over court proceedings; and intensified surveillance that can have “chilling effects” on the exercise of constitutional rights.

Such domestic troubles are matched by what Ms. Brooks sees as a disastrous record abroad. Our invasion of Iraq in 2003 brought chaos, she says; our departure in 2011 brought more. In Afghanistan, “we caused untold suffering for the very population we so earnestly tried to help.” The more we try to fix things around the world, she laments, “the more we end up shattering them into jagged little pieces.”CONTINUE AT SITE

A review of: America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century By Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, Oxford University Press, 2016

Two Dartmouth Professors of Government, Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, have written a timely book examining whether it would be wise for the United States to continue with the basic global strategy it has pursued since the end of World War 2 — what the authors call “global deep engagement.” This strategy has been called into question not only by other academics, who propose an alternative strategy of American retrenchment, but also by several prominent candidates for President this year, including the Republican standard-bearer Donald Trump, the Democratic runner-up, Senator Bernie Sanders, and several of the earlier Republicans contenders. President Barack Obama has to some extent retreated from the deep engagement approach in some areas, while adhering to it in others.

To their credit, the authors make their case independent of commentary on the candidates, and stick to an argument for why the long term strategy is still a suitable one for American foreign policy practitioners.

The deep engagement strategy, according to the authors has three principal components:

Managing the external environment in key regions (Europe, Asia, the Middle East) to reduce near and long-term threats to U.S. national security,
Promoting a liberal economic order to expand the global economy and maximize domestic prosperity,
Creating, sustaining and revising the global institutional order to secure necessary interstate cooperation on terms favorable to U.S. interests.

Minivacation….rsk

Under the headline “U.S. Sent Cash to Iran as Americans Were Freed,” the Wall Street Journal reported on August 3rd the secret transport to Iran of $400 million in Euros and other non-U.S. dollar currencies at around the same time that five American hostages held captive were released by the Iranian regime. The hostages included Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati and Pastor Saeed Abedini. The Obama administration insists that it was all just a coincidence. It was only paying off the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement of Iranian claims before the Iran-US Claims Tribunal in The Hague, arising from a failed arms deal that had preceded the overthrow of the Shah. There was no quid pro quo or ransom paid to get our hostages back, claims the administration. Everyone else with an ounce of common sense knows the truth – the Obama administration violated the long-held policy of the United States not to pay ransom or make other concessions to hostage takers in order to procure the release of the prisoners detained unlawfully by Iran.

The Obama administration is insulting our intelligence in claiming, as State Department spokesman John Kirby has done, that “the negotiations over the settlement of an outstanding claim…were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home.” Even Obama himself had linked the settlement to both the completion of the nuclear deal with Iran and the release of the American captives. “With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well,” Obama said in his victory lap statement at the White House on January 17th. He also announced that, as “a reciprocal humanitarian gesture,” he granted clemency to six Iranian–Americans and one Iranian serving sentences or awaiting trial in the United States. What Obama left out of his self-serving statement last January was that his administration was also sending cash to Iran around that same time, over and above any sanctions relief or release of frozen assets as required by the terms of the nuclear deal itself.

Consider the shady circumstances of the Obama administration’s payment to the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. The exchange of cash to the Iranian regime and release of the hostages were very close in time to one another. The cash, stacked in wooden pallets, was sent secretly on an unmarked cargo plane from banks in the Netherlands and Switzerland. And even U.S. negotiators have admitted, according to the Wall Street Journal article, that “Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible.” That’s called a ransom, which is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity.”

“ObamaBomb: A Dangerous and Growing National Security Fraud” is former CIA Analyst Fred Fleitz scathing condemnation of what he called an “aberration by one of America’s worst and most incompetent presidents.” Written for the one-year anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on July 14 and presented by the author in Washington, D.C. for the Endowment for Middle East Truth and the Heritage Foundation, this book thoroughly validates that assessment.

In the book’s foreword, Fleitz’s current boss, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, summarized the Iran nuclear deal as the “worst diplomatic agreement in my lifetime – and, arguably, in American history.” According to Gaffney, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action guarantees that the Iranian government will eventually have nuclear weapons in its possession. “In the meantime, it enriches them and enables them to engage in jihad, terrorism and subversion.” The unsigned JCPOA “is utterly unverifiable and unenforceable,” he added. “It undermines our allies. It will exacerbate nuclear proliferation, not preclude it.”

President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes has called the JCPOA a “legacy achievement” for Obama’s second term, just as the Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”) was to his first. CSP has “nicknamed the JCPOA the ‘ObamaBomb’ deal, because it is a legacy agreement of President Obama that is just as deceptive as ObamaCare. [Yet], while ObamaCare may destroy the American healthcare system, the ObamaBomb deal may lead to a nuclear armed Iran that could attack America and its allies.”

The book theorized that the JCPOA’s 15-year lifespan “at best will leave Iran with an industrial-scale nuclear program in 10-15 years with the blessing of the international community.” In Fleitz’s opinion, it is more likely that Iran will exploit the deal’s terms to improve uranium enrichment with advanced centrifuges and produce plutonium at the Arak heavy water reactor. “Iran will use the provisions of the nuclear agreement … to significantly increase its capability to produce greater amounts of weapons-grade nuclear fuel in a much shorter time,” he said.

When Jefferson and John Adams went to call on Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, they asked him by what right his Barbary pirates raided American ships, stole their cargo, killed, enslaved, and ransomed their crews. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress, the ambassador answered

that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

That was in the early 1800s. Seems little has changed regarding the mindset of the leaders of the Ummah. Now it turns out that Obama (Kerry?) clandestinely ransomed four American captives held by Iran.

The Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran in January at the same time Tehran was releasing four jailed Americans, payment that a top congressional Republican is calling “ransom.” The Wall Street Journal, citing U.S. and European officials and congressional sources, reported that the administration procured the money from central banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands. The money was stacked on wooden pallets and flown to Tehran in an unmarked cargo plane.

The Iranians know desperation when they see it and Obama was desperate for the appearance of success in the Middle East. Seems we have a president more concerned with his image than with the honor and reputation of the U.S. and its citizens. Compare this to Stephen Decatur, the hero of the Tripoli wars:

WASHINGTON—Senior Justice Department officials objected to sending a plane loaded with cash to Tehran at the same time that Iran released four imprisoned Americans, but their objections were overruled by the State Department, according to people familiar with the discussions.

After announcing the release of the Americans in January, President Barack Obama also said the U.S. would pay $1.7 billion to Iran to settle a failed arms deal dating back to 1979. What wasn’t disclosed then was that the first payment would be $400 million in cash, flown in at the same time, as The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

The timing and manner of the payment raised alarms at the Justice Department, according to those familiar with the discussions. “People knew what it was going to look like, and there was concern the Iranians probably did consider it a ransom payment,’’ said one of the people.

The disclosures reignited a political furor over the Iran deal in Washington that could complicate White House efforts to fortify it before Mr. Obama’s term ends.

Three top Republicans who have been feuding in recent weeks—presidential candidate Donald Trump, Sen. John McCain and House Speaker Paul Ryan—were united Wednesday in blasting the Obama administration.

Senior U.S. officials denied the payment was anything like a ransom. They disputed that there was any link between the payment and the prisoner exchange, saying there was no quid pro quo.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest accused Republicans of seizing upon the Journal report to revive their campaign against the landmark nuclear deal, which took effect the same weekend as the prisoner release.

The prisoner-swap negotiations were led by the State Department, with help from the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation. The cash settlement talks were handled principally by State Department lawyers. All of that work was overseen, and ultimately approved, by the White House. CONTINUE AT SITE

Passions ran high in Philadelphia after the British departed in June 1778, ending their months-long occupation. Bands of patriots tarred-and-feathered Tories who refused to sign “loyalty oaths.” A few months later, two elderly Quakers accused of treason were tried before Pennsylvania Chief Justice Thomas McKean. Though neither had taken up arms against the rebels, one was said to have encouraged giving the British information on rebel plans and helped guard city gates during the occupation. The other admitted that he had encouraged support for the crown, though he had also helped families of American prisoners gain access to them.

Their respective juries found both defendants guilty, and McKean sentenced the old men to death by hanging. Dozens of petitions for clemency were sent to Pennsylvania’s executive council, and just days before their scheduled executions McKean sought pardons for both. “It was vintage McKean,” says biographer David McKean in “Suspected of Independence.” Strongly committed to the rule of law “as the most effective check on ever-changing popular attitudes,” McKean believed that its application “needed to be guided by compassion.” In this case, the pleas for mercy fell on deaf ears.

Though the two Quakers were the only defendants in his court ever to be convicted of treason and put to death, McKean acquired a reputation, endorsed by some historians, as a “hanging judge.” David McKean (a direct descendant of his subject) says that the chief justice generally “showed leniency to the Loyalists after the British vacated Philadelphia.” Even before the British arrived, he set free 29 Quakers who had been detained as suspected Tory sympathizers.

McKean served 22 years as Pennsylvania’s chief justice, and in the republic’s early years, says the author, his court may have been “more powerful” than the nascent U.S. Supreme Court. Some years later, a multi-volume work about the body of law that McKean developed became “a touchstone for courts throughout the country,” including the Supreme Court. “Perhaps no one other than Chief Justice John Marshall did more than McKean to establish an independent judiciary,” Mr. McKean asserts.

The author of three previous books on American political history, David McKean was an official at the State Department until earlier this year, when he was confirmed as U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg. “I never really gave my ancestor a lot of thought,” he writes, until he began to notice fleeting references to him in histories of the period. Unfortunately, Thomas McKean did not keep a diary and was not a prolific letter writer, so events generally loom larger than his intimate perception of them in this brisk biography. CONTINUE AT SITE

When is a payment for hostages not a ransom? When the Obama Administration says so.

That’s how the State Department has tried to spin a $1.7 billion settlement the U.S. reached with Tehran in January, when the nuclear deal was finalized and Tehran released five American hostages, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian. The Administration insists the payment merely settled a separate dispute related to the aborted sale of military equipment to the Shah of Iran in 1979.

New reporting by the Journal’s Jay Solomon and Carol Lee blows apart this story. On the day the U.S. hostages came home from Iran, an unmarked cargo plane landed in Tehran’s Mehrabad Airport with cash amounting to $400 million of euros, Swiss francs and other currencies. U.S. law forbids direct dollar transactions with Iran, and the $400 million in cash wasn’t disclosed to Congress. Justice Department officials objected but were overruled.

One reason the Administration is keen to deny that the cash was ransom is because it had already paid a high price by freeing seven Iranians charged or convicted of U.S. crimes and dropping extradition requests for 14 others. But the Iranians weren’t satisfied.

As the Journal reports, “U.S. officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible.” Cash is an excellent way to pay terrorists, fund Hezbollah in Syria and the Houthis in Yemen, and buy dual-use, nuclear-related hardware—which Iran continues to do, according to reports from Germany’s intelligence services.

The Administration is pretending this money is being used for strictly kosher purposes. “The revenue that’s flowing to Iran is being used to support its currency, to provide moneys to the departments and agencies, build up its infrastructure,” CIA Director John Brennan said last week. Has he heard the word fungible?

The Iranians are less shy about their hostage taking. Iran’s negotiating team for the settlement payment “was largely staffed by members of its domestic spy service,” the Journal reports. Iranian defense officials told the press the cash was “a ransom payment.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Another example of Hillary Clinton’s chicanery…and one can only ask…where is the outrage? rsk

Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Debacle: Arming Jihadists in Libya . . . and Syria Looking ahead to the next installment of e-mails from WikiLeaks By Andrew C. McCarthy

As U.S. armed forces attack ISIS in Libya, WikiLeaks is poised to remind us that ISIS is in Libya — indeed, that ISIS is ISIS — thanks to disastrous policies championed by Hillary Clinton as President Obama’s secretary of state. Also raised, yet again, is the specter of Mrs. Clinton’s lying to Congress and the American people — this time regarding a matter some of us have been trying for years to get answers about: What mission was so important the United States kept personnel in the jihadist hellhole of Benghazi in 2012?

Specifically, did that mission involve arming the Syrian “rebels” — including al-Qaeda and forces that became ISIS — just as, at Mrs. Clinton’s urging, our government had armed Libyan “rebels” (again, jihadists) to catastrophic effect?

It has been less than two weeks since WikiLeaks rocked the Clinton campaign on the eve of the Democratic convention by leaking hacked e-mails illuminating DNC efforts to rig the nomination chase in Clinton’s favor. Now the organization’s founder, Julian Assange, has announced that WikiLeaks is soon to publish highly sensitive government e-mails that demonstrate Hillary Clinton’s key participation in efforts to arm jihadists in Syria. Just as in Libya, where Mrs. Clinton championed the strategy of arming Islamist “rebels,” the Syrian “rebels” who ultimately received weapons included the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

The Daily Wire and other outlets are reporting on Assange’s comments, published by Democracy Now. Clearly, we should not take Assange’s word for what is to be gleaned from the hacked records, which he says include some 17,000 e-mails “about Libya alone.” Let’s see if he has what he says he has. But it is worth setting the stage, because what is known is outrageous and has not been given nearly enough attention — largely because Beltway Republicans were complicit in the Obama-Clinton policy of allying with Islamists, and thus have shown no interest in probing the inevitably disastrous fallout.

As I have been pointing out for years, for example, we have never gotten to the bottom of why the State Department, under Mrs. Clinton’s direction, had an installation in Benghazi, one of the world’s most dangerous places for Americans.