John Stuart Mill and blog management
Mr. Cossio’s latest comment presents this question: what does a blog administrator do when someone contributes a post that the adminstrator is ashamed to have on a blog with which his name is associated? I could delete the post. This isn’t a public forum and I have no more obligation to allow a comment to remain on this blog than the Washington Post does to print any particular letter to the editor.
I nevertheless decided to leave the comment up (though I won’t be offended if one of the other administrators reaches an opposite conclusion and removes it). Like Mill, I believe there is value in the expression and refutation of falsehoods. We’ve recently seen some empirical support for this proposition: while it ran counter to the political communication schoolbook solution, the Obama campaign’s “fight the smears” web site proved more effective than the Kerry campaign’s decision to largely ignore the swift boaters. While there’s little prospect of changing Mr. Cossio’s mind, perhaps other readers have thoughts similar to those that he expresses. And perhaps some of them might be swayed by counter-argument.
Mr. Cossio suggests considering restricting military recruiting of Muslims. One obvious objection is that any such restriction would be unconstitutional. It would violate not only the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, but also Article VI’s prohibition against religious tests. It would violate two portions of the Constitution because it is fundamentally inconsistent with core American principles — religious tolerance being very high among them. It would dishonor the service and sacrifice of legions of patriotic and courageous American Muslims. Colin Powell, in responding to false rumors during the 2008 presidential campaign that Barack Obama was Muslim, gave a far more eloquent explanation of this concept than I ever could:
Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim; he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian.
But the real right answer is, “What if he is?” Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated [with] terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards—Purple Heart, Bronze Star—showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American.
He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life.
You can see that picture here.
I believe in General Powell’s vision of America. It is a vision rooted in the Constitution that every American servicemember has sworn to support and defend. I honor Corporal Khan’s ultimate sacrifice for our country. I grieve for his family, just as I honor the service and sacrifice of those killed and wounded at Fort Hood and grieve for their families. And I won’t remain silent while the service of any honorable, patriotic Marine, Sailor, Airman, Soldier, or Coast Guardsman–living or fallen–is besmirched.
I must have missed him saying that. Talk about un-American. For someone who proclaims so loudly the importance of the Constitution, he sure doesn’t seem to understand it very well.
Bigotry has many faces, the people who simply brag about their patriotism are usually the ones with a minor understanding of the American ideal at best. MR.Cosio needs to be forgiven for on a pillar of forgiveness America stands.
How about instead of a ban on Muslims, there’s a ban on people who pass bad checks and set up websites to steal servicemember’s personal data?
Cue my comment about posting less because threads seem to get hijacked by persons I don’t enjoy conversing or debating with.
Mr. Sullivan,
Thank you for posting this. I have thought many times since this whole fiasco began of Mr. Powell’s statements to the press, and I cannot look at that picture without a tear welling up in my eye. Perhaps it is because I have a family member buried in Arlington within a stone’s throw of that headstone.
My family member and Corporal Khan were brothers in arms. Their religion did not matter. Both died supporting and defending this nation. I support your allowance of debate on this site, and appreciate the frequent opportunity to engage the likes of yourself, JO’C, and others on issues of military law, whether I agree with other posters or not.
That Mr. Cossio has caused some to post less on this site is disappointing. I hope to be able to engage more frequently with my colleagues in arms and law.
SDC, I’m sorry for your loss. I don’t know who you are, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we don’t know each other. If we do, I hope that at some point you will share the story of your family member’s service to our country with me.
I agree with the commenters, but I also think it’s a mistake to pretend there’s no problem. It’s only going to get worse with this incident. I could even imagine things getting so bad that restrictions would have to be enacted, for the welfare of Muslim service members if not for security/good order and discipline. I don’t think this is a unique challenge for our Armed Forces (beginning, at least, with the San Patricios, through the restrictions on Japanese/German service members in WWII, and perhaps today including DADT(?)). The issue of religion, though, certainly does complicate things.
Anonymous says:
November 7, 2009 at 7:45 am
How about instead of a ban on Muslims, there’s a ban on people who pass bad checks and set up websites to steal service member’s personal data?
Well I suppose you get points for being half right. You see the person writing bad checks and getting away with larceny, and DUI’s, was Mr. Tree, who was given immunity to testify against me. Finally the Government uses deception all the time to gather information, which is what I did. Sounds like you don’t know what you are talking about.
—————————–
The 1st Amendment. Wow. I’m glad we are focusing on the first Amendment. It seems some groups like to Cherry pick it’s language, I am well aware of the Court’s absurd interpretation of the first amendment, I will not go through the hypocrisy of such rulings. At least the ACLU went after the Muslim tax-paid school in Minnesota, although certainly there are dozen of examples.
Instead I will go with plain language, and common sense.
The First Amendment States:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
First, you so-called constitutional lawyers, I do not see where this amendment prohibits exclusion of a fanatical “religion”.
If my “religious” belief were to sacrifice animals (Ifa and Santeria – a federal judge actually ruled to allow inmates to practice this “religion” in prison) then I would say the Military has every right not to allow me to sacrifice roosters, turtles, and goats. My Brother is in this “religion” so I am quite familiar with his pagan animal sacrifices. So in your constrained legal theory we should allow these people to “practice” their religion in the military.
I am assuming then you have no qualms about Jews wearing a yarmulke while in uniform, or Jehovah Witnesses refusal to salute the American Flag and Give Blood.
If you people really want to wrap yourself in the first amendment then you should allow Muslims to grow a beard while in the Military and to Pray to Mecca three times a day.
Before you open your mouth, I am illustrating that the Military can restrict religious practices, as it has already done.
The executive branch is not “Congress”, military policy is not “law” the Supreme Court has recognized the the Constitutional rights to the First Amendment doesn’t necessarily transfer over in military members:
Goldman v. Weinberger
Petitioner’s Claim
“That the U.S. Air Force regulations on uniform dress preventing petitioner from wearing a yarmulke while on duty violate his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, and that the Supreme Court reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals prior ruling that strict enforcement of Air Force regulations is permissible….The ruling affirmed that, because the military’s interest in uniformity of dress is necessary for the strict obedience, unity, commitment, and morale required by the armed forces, the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion does not require the military to accommodate personnel whose religious beliefs require them to violate uniform regulations….Although the First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, religious beliefs sometimes conflict state interests, including a person’s military duty. The Supreme Court has never held that a person has a constitutional right to be exempted from military service because of religious convictions, though it has upheld that statutory right. But even in rulings that have embraced a broad interpretation of religion, the Court has not said that the First Amendment protections outweigh the military’s significant interest in maintaining a force ready and fit for the country’s defense.”
Your absurd interpretation of the First Amendment was dealt with in that case. Your reliance on Article VI “religious test” is amusing to me, but requires no discussion.
Finally I did not say we should restrict Muslims from Service, you made that up. I said the Army should consider who they let in to their ranks. Obviously we need Muslims, especially in linguistic roles. This guy, according to reports was given a bad performance rep at Walter Reed, where he reportedly was prostituting Islam to patience. He was already under investigation by the FBI. There were plenty of warning flags. The Army needs to improve on thier screening and make sure no other Muslim Soldiers are having the same thoughts as this man.
Although I would love to get into an argument about Islam as not only a “religion” but also a Political Structure with a strict laws, and point to many quotes which commands Muslims to make war with Infidels, I’m afraid you people are not equipped to debate me on world religion. You people know about Islam about as much as my pet Dog.
But I’ll close with this from Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. As Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
“The ambassador answered us 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.”
To simplify the above post:
The Military can choose whomever they want to serve irrespective of thier religious beliefs and conversely they may exlude anyone who’s religious beliefs do not conform to Military Service.
There is no “First Amendment” Protection from a religion being included/exluded from Service. If you disagree I am not in the mood to debate the issue. There is no debate, it would be like telling me the Sun revolves around the Earth.
However I never said that we we should exclude Muslims from service, so the issue you raise is mute.
We should watch for Muslim extremism in the military, like we watch for Evangelical extremism, and develop counseling and preventive measures. I will not pretend to know what these measures may be, so I will differ to anyone’s expertise.
Anon 11:32
http://www.military.com/news/article/army-oks-sikh-doc-to-wear-beard-turban.html
The military can adapt.
I dare say I know more than Cossio about the application of constitutional rights in the military context. Cossio could not be more wrong in asserting that the First Amendment has no application in the military context.
Conversely, I dare say Cossio knows more than me about the quality of brig chow. I wouldn’t enter into a debate with him on that subject.
Colonel,
Thank you for your condolences. If we happen to run across each other I’d be happy to talk with you about that and many other issues.
I will say that quality of Brig Chow is excellent. I was surprised that NAS Pensacola had such excellent meals compared to the grool I received at Lackland. And that of course beats Baloney Sandwiches from County.
“Cossio could not be more wrong in asserting that the First Amendment has no application in the military context.”
Again, putting words into my mouth.
What I said was the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect one from being excluded/included (via draft) from Military Service.
The Supreme Court has looked into this issue, and the 1st Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, which similarly does not transfer in its entirety when someone enters military service.
Thanks Phil,
I feel better now that the Army is allowing Sikh to wear beards and Turbans. Awesome, that’s really diverse of them.
I wonder sometimes if we still have any Generals running the service, or a bunch of M.B.A.’s with Diversity training.
“What I said was the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect one from being excluded/included (via draft) from Military Service.”
Which of course is such a ridiculously wrong statement that none of here are in the mood to debate you. It would be, as you say, like saying the Sun revolves around the Earth.
“I feel better now that the Army is allowing Sikh to wear beards and Turbans. Awesome, that’s really diverse of them.”
Yes, it’s a horrible thing. Of course, the Brits do it too. And head coverings can be worn by Muslim and Jewish Soldiers in many situations. I served with many when I was enlisted who wore the Muslim head cap in uniform.
Since 2000, we’ve had two murders by Muslim Soldiers that I am aware of in this context. Two. Meanwhile, we’ve had at least that number by Christian Soldiers against other Soldiers in this context.
Should we ban Christian Soldiers? Are they a problem? There are what roughly 1500 Muslim Soldiers in the military and we have had this happen with .0013 percent of them and it’s a problem?
Only if you are a racist maybe.
As for historical founding and religion. I seem to remember a lot of Americans who found all sort of support in Christian scripture for slavery and the subjugation of African-Americans. Should we state that Christians are all really into slavery because at some point in the past some bad Christians used, or should I say misused, the Bible for evil? Clearly using Cossio-logic we would.
Using regular logic we wouldn’t. I agree with the others though, Coventry would be the easiest way to handle things but there is always the chance that someone might get sucked into Cossio’s way of “thinking” and we really need to guard against that.
Anon 15:50,
Please don’t diss me that I got this off Fix News.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572887,00.html
I stand corrected, the percentage is, if one uses the 10K estimate, .0002.
We’ve got a real problem here folks. Scimitars at necks I’m tellin’ ya!!
Not corrected. Just another source of information. Although it is Fix News, so possibly the figures are inflated to make it seem we are about to be overwhelmed.
Cheers.
Well you know my cat does seem to lay down about five times a day. She could be Muslim. Good thing we got her declawed!
So Anon 15:50
What you are saying is that I am wrong. That the US Military cannot exclude a religion/race, nor can it compel a certain person belonging to a certain religion to serve in the Military.
Why don’t you cite some kind of case law saying this is constitutionally banned.
So because the Brits allow their service members to do what they want, we should too. Great legal reasoning. They allow open homosexuality too, and the Germans allow for fraternization. I suppose a 20 watt bulb like yourself thinks that’s ok.
“Since 2000, we’ve had two murders by Muslim Soldiers that I am aware of in this context. Two. Meanwhile, we’ve had at least that number by Christian Soldiers against other Soldiers in this context.”
Besides that we also have espionage cases. Private Anderson (who I didn’t think he should have been court martialed, it was entrapment) and that Marine women (I think she was a Marine).
Allow me to state the painfully obvious. The difference is that the crimes by Muslims were BASED on their religious beliefs. They were motivated by their religious beliefs. Why the other crimes were committed incidental to them being Christians.
“I seem to remember a lot of Americans who found all sort of support in Christian scripture for slavery and the subjugation of African-Americans.”
Ahh, here we go, I know someone would bring that up. First, your out of your element Donnie (Big Lebowski) I could go on about what slavery really was in the Biblical way, and that the people who used the Bible as an excuse were twisting things to justify their own behavior (The reliance of Geneses is flawed).
But instead I will go with your train of thought. The fact is we have IN THE PRESENT individuals who interpret the Koran a certain extremist way. Yes, we had Christians that did the same, but that was ages ago and to the extent we still have “Fundamental Christians” they are no where near the level of Islamic Fundamentalist.
Imagine if the enemy, instead of being the so-called “Islamofacism”, were Israel or Vatican City.
Would we not be counseling Jewish and Catholic service members as to how they should confront any conflicts they might be feeling, and advising other members that they should not mistrust all — but perhaps some — Jewish and Catholic members of their own units?
Don’t Muslim service members deserve the same consideration and attention in the present conflict?
It is one thing to spout differing, even wild, radical or bizarre ideas or interpretations of such. Now and then some have merit, as Galileo proved centuries ago.
But, it is quite another to forego civility in the context of debate. That to me is the issue here.
The AF CCA in U.S. v. Cossio, 2008 WL 513520 (AF CCA 2008), noted:
“[W]e find the petitioner’s guilt to the offenses is overwhelming. While trial defense counsel did attempt to attack the credibility of SrA MHT that was not the real defense strategy. Faced with a variety of admissions by the petitioner, the trial strategy centered more on minimization of the petitioner’s conduct than on attacks of SrA MHT’s credibility.” Id., at *2
That was from the Writ Application decision from his first GCM.
If one examines his second case, his angst and frustrations are perhaps more understandable, but the lack of civility is not. The MJ dismissed all of the charges against him:
“Airman Basic Jose A. Cossio was charged with attempting to violate a lawful general regulation, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, willful disobedience of a lawful order, wrongfully creating and maintaining a false official web page which solicited computer identifications, and wrongfully pretending to be an employee acting under the authority of the United States Air Force….” 64 M.J. 254 (CAAF), cert. denied 551 U.S. 1147 (2007);
on the basis of a speedy trial violation. The AF CCA granted the government’s appeal and reversed, and the CAAF thereafter affirmed.
Col Sullivan – you sir, made a hard, but correct decision in my mind in not deleting the offensive post(s). In addition to your insightful analysis of the issue, as scurrilous as some of Mr. Cossio’s posts may have been to me and others, the words of John Donne come to mind:
“No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main….”
“Minimization” and “disrespect” seem to be a common theme.
“Why don’t you cite some kind of case law saying this is constitutionally banned.”
Cossio, I’m not doing your job for you. You are the one saying that the military can ban entire religions from serving. It’s not my job to provide proof against your assertion, it’s your job to actually prove your assertion.
“The fact is we have IN THE PRESENT individuals who interpret the Koran a certain extremist way. Yes, we had Christians that did the same, but that was ages ago and to the extent we still have “Fundamental Christians” they are no where near the level of Islamic Fundamentalist.”
Really? How many people did Koresh kill? Wasn’t there an abortion doctor just killed because of the extreme Christian beliefs of the killer about abortion? Some of the Anthrax scare was linked to radical Christian groups. What about the Racist Christianity of the militia groups?
“the people who used the Bible as an excuse were twisting things to justify their own behavior”
Irony much? So when Christians do it, it is “twisting” but when a Muslim does it, then it’s the true belief of an entire religion. Here’s a hint, it’s twisting in both cases done by sick people.
“They were motivated by their religious beliefs.”
So what? People are dead. The folks who did are killers. What difference does it make what twisted reason they used to come to their decisions to kill? Unless you are looking to tar an entire group with the actions of literally a tiny slice of them.
Anon 1547:
“Would we not be counseling Jewish and Catholic service members as to how they should confront any conflicts they might be feeling, and advising other members that they should not mistrust all — but perhaps some — Jewish and Catholic members of their own units?”
In the 1940s we might, but one hopes not today. If whole swaths of folks in a certain religion were committing these crimes, you might say, hey maybe there’s a pact, or maybe there is some groupthink going on here we have to perhaps separate these folks out.
But like the Japanese Americans of the 40s, the reality is that 99.999 percent of them go through life with no issues related to their religion, they serve, they fight, they even die, they do their duty, and they live their lives.
The only counseling we should be doing is continually reminding folks the reality of the situation. And the reality is that you do not fear or condemn a group of Muslim Americans because .0002 percent of them have done something wrong.
In a post dated 7 November 02009 at 1249, Mr. Cossio wrote in bold font: “Finally I did not say we should restrict Muslims from Service, you made that up.” Accusing someone of lying is a serious charge. In this instance, it is also demonstrably untrue. In my post, I wrote, “Mr. Cossio suggests considering restricting military recruiting of Muslims.” In a post dated 6 November 2009 at 1632, Mr. Cossio wrote: “Anyways, I think they should consider restricting Muslim recruiting, along with immigration from Muslims to the US.”
Mr. Cossio’s comments also make the rather obvious mistake of confusing religious belief or affiliation with religious practices. But I have no intention of analyzing and refuting his positions one-by-one. But if anyone wants to have a serious dialogue about constitutional jurisprudence regarding the religion clauses, I’ll be happy to engage. As always, you can reach me at caaflog@caaflog.com.
This is probably my last post on this subject.
The following extended quotation is from the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith:
“The distinction between the absolute constitutional protection against governmental regulation of religious beliefs on the one hand, and the qualified protection against the regulation of religiously motivated conduct, on the other, was carefully explained in our opinion in Sherbert:
“‘The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such, Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303. Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488; nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities, Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67; nor employ the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105; Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573; cf. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233. On the other hand, the Court has rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted by religious beliefs or principles, for “even when the action is in accord with one’s religious convictions, [it] is not totally free from legislative restrictions.” Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 603. The conduct or actions so regulated have invariably posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order. See, e. g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158; Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14.’”
Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Resources v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660, 670 n.13 (1988).
Here’s the take away from that extended quotation: “Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief . . . nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities.” Of course, Islam is not abhorrent to U.S. government authorities. But even if it were, as the Supreme Court has made clear, it would be unconstitutional to discriminate against individuals because they adhere to Islam.
Dwight-san, where’s the rating button?
Colonel Sullivan,
“In a post dated 6 November 2009 at 1632, Mr. Cossio wrote: “Anyways, I think they should consider restricting Muslim recruiting, along with immigration from Muslims to the US.”
re•strict (r-strkt)
tr.v. re•strict•ed, re•strict•ing, re•stricts
To keep or confine within limits. See Synonyms at limit.
I clearly meant to place limits on Muslim recruitment. i.e. Maybe think twice before recruiting someone from Hezbollah, Iran, Jordan etc. I did not mean to say to restrict them totally from Service, which is what you were implying later in your post.
You also said that such a restriction would be against, among other things, the 1st Amendment. I was pointing out not really. (Goldman v. Weinberger)
I will not argue semantics, I’ll say it one more time, I think the Army should restrict recruitment of Muslims. This is NOT to be confused with “the Army should stop recruiting Muslims”.
I was thinking from certain Areas. Jordan, which is where this guy came from, along with the 911 hijackers, is common sense. Also I would toughen up Psyche Evals.
I am aware of the Contributions that Muslims from Morocco made during WWII. I am also aware of the contributions Muslims made to the Nazi’s (Google Grand Mufti)
———————————————
Anon 18:07
Those examples of Christian Fundamentalist you bring up do not concern the military, or military recruitment. Like I said before you might as well cite Crusader Knights.
And yes, if Jews or a certain Christian Sect had a religious belief that they should blow themselves up, shoot innocents, etc., as part of their religion I would imagine the Government to keep tabs on them…Oh wait, that’s right, they already have.
———————————————
Dew Process,
Not exactly sure what your post was about. I read it three times over, however your “issue” that you bring up is fascinating:
The AF CCA in U.S. v. Cossio, 2008 WL 513520 (AF CCA 2008), noted:
“[W]e find the petitioner’s guilt to the offenses is overwhelming. While trial defense counsel did attempt to attack the credibility of SrA MHT that was not the real defense strategy. Faced with a variety of admissions by the petitioner, the trial strategy centered more on minimization of the petitioner’s conduct than on attacks of SrA MHT’s credibility.” Id., at *2
I don’t like to talk about my case unless someone brings it up. Here you have done so.
First, the court was wrong. You see they acted like there were only the Larceny Charges. But the Government also charged me with communicating a threat. No evidence except for the “victim” who stole $ 1,000 dollars from his girlfriend, had DUI’s and arrest for bad checks.
I took a Polygraph from a respectable firm – and passed. I maintained my innocence on the threat charge. The Judge’s Opinion is asinine.
They said that the defense trial strategy was not to attack SrA Tree’s credibility.
Well that’s because the TC filed a motion in Limine which was partially granted. In that same Motion TC talked about how credible Tree’s testimony was, he made the same arguments in summation.
The Bad Checks, which was hidden from us, would have affected the credibility of SrA Tree, along with the Sentencing of the case, and possibly the Motion in Limine.
In short the Judge limited my counsel’s ability to attack Tree’s credibility, and now the AFCCA punished me because of a handicap the Court gave us. What else is new.
In my second trial the Judge Handicapped us again and said we could not go into illegal confinement (I was arrested outside base with no warrant). On appeal CAAF said that I failed to show prejudice in my confinement.
Unbelievable that the Government is able to handicap Defense Counseled, then punish them on appeal when they fail to provide evidence which they were precluded to bring up in the first place.
Unbelievable the Government overcharges and when one of those charges is in question, the court ignores it as if it doesn’t exist.
Finally this is not over.
The Email “hacking” was done to secure evidence that they lied in court, which I was able to obtain some evidence. They were investigated, I am still awaiting the Report to be sent to me. With that I hope to file one more appeal. I am not sure if I should go with CAAF or seek relief elsewhere.
I like the ratings option !!!
Your banning me from IP address is a little 90′s though. Banning my MAC address is more stylish.
If you ask I will refrain from posting for a while, if at all.
If you do things like block my IP, when I can easily Proxy it, then I’m afraid you will give me a most unpleasant impression.
I think I will take another one of my sabbaticals
I said what I wanted to say, and I stand by all my words 100%.
Only in a few posts where I was mistaking on facts did I regret (the Gitmo transfer of Iraqis were there might have never been any detainees from Iraq being one of them).
This is not one of them. There is a problem with Extremist from the Islamic faith. In every countinet with the exception of Antarctica there are terror attacks. It is wrong to equate this with people who attack abortion clinics. It is Apples to Oranges.
Solution is better screening and a more proactive approach in identifying potential problems. This man was under investigation by the FBI among other things, yet was about to deploy. The reasons why he wasn’t arrested are not clear. What is clear is the PC atmosphere has handicapped law enforcement.
I leave you for now to ponder this.
In the next 10 years, assuming there is an America left, assuming that the politicians haven’t given it away, what will this America look like?
Will we have riots and bombings like in France, Spain, the UK? Will the quislings continue to equate such riots and murders by religious fanatics the same as any other murder or riot?
Only time will tell.
I will tell you one thing, I hope that you are right, and I am wrong. I hope people will be able to exercise their freedom of speech, before we submit to the UN and declare any dissent as hate language worthy of confinement.
I hope I am wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/us/08investigate.html
After two days of investigation into the mass shooting at Fort Hood, investigators have tentatively concluded that the attack was not part of a terrorist plot.
Rather, they have come to believe that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused in the shootings, acted out under a welter of emotional, ideological and religious pressures, according to interviews with federal officials who have been briefed on the inquiry.
In the next 10 years, assuming there is a planet left, what will the planet look like?
Will it be populated by freakish amalgams of alien life forms, cocker spaniels, and clones of Miley Cyrus? Will the threat of global warming be replaced by the threat of global itching? Will all music on the radio by only Nickleback songs?
Only time will tell.
Phil, thanx for the update.
Anon 2110
Keep your day job, you are not funny. The people living in terror in London, Bombay, and Madrid are not laughing.
Mr. Cossio wrote: “I think the Army should restrict recruitment of Muslims. . . . I was thinking from certain Areas. Jordan, which is where this guy came from . . . .” Actually, Major Hasan was born and raised in Virginia.
Mr. Cossio cites Goldman v. Weinberger in support of the proposition that the military can restrict recruiting by religious faith. Goldman stands for no such proposition. Goldman held that the military could apply a neutral criterion that had the effect of prohibiting the wearing of yarmulkes in uniform without offending the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Goldman did NOT hold that the military could prohibit Jews from serving in the military or impose some sort of quota or other restriction on Jews in the military. As I’ve previously indicated — and supported with Supreme Court case law — there is a constitutionally significant difference between government discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or affiliation and neutral application of a statute or regulation that happens to infringe on a religious practice. So, for instance, the military could not refuse to enlist a Rastafarian due to his religion but could successfully prosecute a Rastafarian military member who smokes marijuana as part of a religious rite.
Interestingly, after the Supremes decided Goldman, Congress passed a statute authorizing servicemembers to wear conservative items of religious apparel while in uniform. 10 U.S.C. § 774.
Finally, Mr. Cossio wrote in a previous post: “I think they should consider restricting Muslim recruiting.” I quoted him practically in hac verba thusly: “Mr. Cossio suggests considering restricting military recruiting of Muslims.” He then accused me of “ma[king] that up” — quite a serious challenge to my integrity. When I quoted his words and my practically matching characterization of his words, Mr. Cossio again suggests that I misrepresented his previous comment. He explains: “I think the Army should restrict recruitment of Muslims. This is NOT to be confused with ‘the Army should stop recruiting Muslims’.”
I stand by the accuracy of my previous post. And there is no question that an Executive Order, military regulation, or congressional statute limiting military recruiting on the ground of religious affiliation would be unconstitutional. Such a restriction would also be horrible public policy. And it would be an affront to the principle of religious tolerance on which this country was founded.
Phil Cave writes: “Dwight-san, where’s the rating button?” My Liege, I don’t even understand what that question means.
“Keep your day job, you are not funny.”
Cossio you are right. I could never hope to inspire the laughter with my posts that you do with yours.
Zach, where’s the rating button(s) you or someone started to apply to the site. I’d give you a smiley, but I don’t know how to do that from a comment post.
Hmmm…
Apparently Col. Sullivan wasn’t even aware that there was changes to the website. While I was posting my post at 2019 there was a “Like/Dislike” with an “Votes” and rating section.
A few minutes later it was replaced with a thumbs up and thumbs down Gif. Now it all has been removed.
I would also like the edit function back, which leads me to my last post Concerning my comments.
Col. Sullivan is correct, I missed understood his first post, and when I was typing my reply I did not include some language to clairify what I was trying to say, in other words I sounded like a who-know-what.
When I said that the Army should look into restricting Muslims, I meant a more thourough check, and perhaps a more thourough screening especially if they come from the middle east, not an outright ban on them. As I posted earlier we need their help to win this war, especially for linguistic jobs.
Following that Colonel Sullivan put this up, and stated that the First Amendment, and Article VI would prohibit the Military from excluding a religion.
My response was that I never said that I would restrict Muslims from Service and that this assertion was made up. I was wrong myself, because Mr. Sullivan quoted me directly, I never said “Sevice” but restrictions on recruiting.
Anyway, I further stated that evenso, the Plain Language of the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
First, a Military regulation, and/or an order from the Executive Branch (President), is not Congressional Law. Second I do not see how such a restiriction would be an “establishment of religion…or prohibiting the free excercise thereof” there is no right to serve in the Armed Forces. Finally I cited Goldman v. Weinberger in support that if a religion practice/belief was not consistent with military bearing we don’t have to recruit them.
If a man comes into the recruiter’s office and says “I’m a Muslim, and my interpetation of the Koran is to treat non-muuslims as second class citizens and inferior, I also am sympethetic to the terrorist fighting the invaders”, they do not have a right to cry religious discrimination if the recuiter decides to take a pass on them.
If a Jehova Witness says “I don’t believe in saluting the Flag or Giveing blood or celebrating anniversities, but I want to join the Military for the education benifits”, he doesn’t have a right to cry religious discrimination.
I realize that not all Muslims are sympethetic to the terrorist, but every poll done it is a significant percentage.
I would be condeming Zealot Christians too, however the last threat of Irish Protestant Bombers in the US Military is not a significant threat.
It is wrong to point Gray and Loving a analogous to Hassan. Anyone doing that would have no trouble fitting in the Clinton/Obama Administration who treats everything like a P.C. Police Action and will not even classify this as a Global War on Terrorism.
It’s such a shame that we’re approaching 40 comments on this (more when you count Zach’s launching of the thumbs option). When is the last time a posting related to miljus received so many comments? I would have thought most of you would have followed your own advice and not engage those you choose not to engage. I imagine that if the people focus their comments on the posted issue, there’d be no further need make separate posts about comment protocol. So, when was the last time a real miljus issue received this many comments?
Koresh or the FBI killed people?
It looks like the mass murderer (Hasan) and the spy (Diaz) were the last miljus issues that generated this much activity in the comments section.