Monday, 3 June 2013

Top 10 warning signs of 'liberal imperialism'


Top 10 warning signs of 'liberal imperialism'
By Stephen M. Walt
Monday, May 20, 2013

Are you a liberal imperialist? Liberal imperialists are like kinder, gentler neoconservatives: Like neocons, they believe it's America's responsibility to right political and humanitarian wrongs around the world, and they're comfortable with the idea of the United States deciding who will run countries such as Libya, Syria, or Afghanistan. Unlike neocons, liberal imperialists embrace and support international institutions (like the United Nations), and they are driven more by concern for human rights than they are by blind nationalism or protecting the U.S.-Israel special relationship. Still, like the neocons, liberal imperialists are eager proponents for using American hard power, even in situations where it might easily do more harm than good. The odd-bedfellow combination of their idealism with neocons' ideology has given us a lot of bad foreign policy over the past decade, especially the decisions to intervene militarily in Iraq or nation-build in Afghanistan, and today's drumbeat to do the same in Syria.

It's not that the United States should never intervene in other countries or that its military should not undertake humanitarian missions (as it did in Indonesia following the Asian tsunami and in Haiti after a damaging earthquake). It should do so, however, only when there are vital national interests at stake or when sending U.S. troops or American arms is overwhelmingly likely to make things better. In short, decisions to intervene need to clear a very high bar and survive hardheaded questioning about what the use of force will actually accomplish.

So while I often sympathize with their intentions, I'm tempted to send all liberal imperialists a sampler cross-stitched with: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." At a minimum, that warning might help them be just a bit more skeptical about the wisdom of their advice. But I'm lousy at needlepoint, so instead today I offer my "10 Warning Signs that You Are a Liberal Imperialist."

#1: You frequently find yourself advocating that the United States send troops, drones, weapons, Special Forces, or combat air patrols to some country that you have never visited, whose language(s) you don't speak, and that you never paid much attention to until bad things started happening there.

#2: You tend to argue that the United States is morally obligated to "do something" rather than just stay out of nasty internecine quarrels in faraway lands. In the global classroom that is our digitized current world, you believe that being a bystander -- even thousands of miles away -- is as bad as being the bully. So you hardly ever find yourself saying that "we should sit this one out."

#3: You think globally and speak, um, globally. You are quick to condemn human rights violations by other governments, but American abuses (e.g., torture, rendition, targeted assassinations, Guantánamo, etc.) and those of America's allies get a pass. You worry privately (and correctly) that aiming your critique homeward might get in the way of a future job.

#4: You are a strong proponent of international law, except when it gets in the way of Doing the Right Thing. Then you emphasize its limitations and explain why the United States doesn't need to be bound by it in this case.

#5: You belong to the respectful chorus of those who publicly praise the service of anyone in the U.S. military, but you would probably discourage your own progeny from pursuing a military career.

#6. Even if you don't know very much about military history, logistics, or modern military operations, you are still convinced that military power can achieve complex political objectives at relatively low cost.

#7: To your credit, you have powerful sympathies for anyone opposing a tyrant. Unfortunately, you tend not to ask whether rebels, exiles, and other anti-regime forces are trying to enlist your support by telling you what they think you want to hear. (Two words: Ahmed Chalabi.)

#8. You are convinced that the desire for freedom is hard-wired into human DNA and that Western-style liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government. Accordingly, you believe that democracy can triumph anywhere -- even in deeply divided societies that have never been democratic before -- if outsiders provide enough help.

#9. You respect the arguments of those who are skeptical about intervening, but you secretly believe that they don't really care about saving human lives.

#10. You believe that if the United States does not try to stop a humanitarian outrage, its credibility as an ally will collapse and its moral authority as a defender of human rights will be tarnished, even if there are no vital strategic interests at stake.

If you are exhibiting some or all of these warning signs, you have two choices. Option #1: You can stick to your guns (literally) and proudly own up to your interventionist proclivities. Option #2: You can admit that you've been swept along by the interventionist tide and seek help. If you choose the latter course, I recommend that you start by reading Alexander Downes and Jonathan Monten's " Forced to Be Free?: Why Foreign-Imposed Regime Change Rarely Leads to Democratization" (International Security, 2013), along with Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistan and Peter Van Buren's We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People.

And if that doesn't work, maybe we need some sort of 12-step program…

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/20/top_ten_warning_signs_of_liberal_imperialism

The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan... Stalin Did


The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan... Stalin Did
Have 70 years of nuclear policy been based on a lie?
BY WARD WILSON
MAY 29, 2013

The U.S. use of nuclear weapons against Japan during World War II has long been a subject of emotional debate. Initially, few questioned President Truman's decision to drop two atomic bombs, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, in 1965, historian Gar Alperovitz argued that, although the bombs did force an immediate end to the war, Japan's leaders had wanted to surrender anyway and likely would have done so before the American invasion planned for November 1. Their use was, therefore, unnecessary. Obviously, if the bombings weren't necessary to win the war, then bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong. In the 48 years since, many others have joined the fray: some echoing Alperovitz and denouncing the bombings, others rejoining hotly that the bombings were moral, necessary, and life-saving.

Both schools of thought, however, assume that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with new, more powerful weapons did coerce Japan into surrendering on August 9. They fail to question the utility of the bombing in the first place -- to ask, in essence, did it work? The orthodox view is that, yes, of course, it worked. The United States bombed Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9, when the Japanese finally succumbed to the threat of further nuclear bombardment and surrendered. The support for this narrative runs deep. But there are three major problems with it, and, taken together, they significantly undermine the traditional interpretation of the Japanese surrender.

Timing

The first problem with the traditional interpretation is timing. And it is a serious problem. The traditional interpretation has a simple timeline: The U.S. Army Air Force bombs Hiroshima with a nuclear weapon on August 6, three days later they bomb Nagasaki with another, and on the next day the Japanese signal their intention to surrender.* One can hardly blame American newspapers for running headlines like: "Peace in the Pacific: Our Bomb Did It!"

When the story of Hiroshima is told in most American histories, the day of the bombing -- August 6 -- serves as the narrative climax. All the elements of the story point forward to that moment: the decision to build a bomb, the secret research at Los Alamos, the first impressive test, and the final culmination at Hiroshima. It is told, in other words, as a story about the Bomb. But you can't analyze Japan's decision to surrender objectively in the context of the story of the Bomb. Casting it as "the story of the Bomb" already presumes that the Bomb's role is central.

Viewed from the Japanese perspective, the most important day in that second week of August wasn't August 6 but August 9. That was the day that the Supreme Council met -- for the first time in the war -- to discuss unconditional surrender. The Supreme Council was a group of six top members of the government -- a sort of inner cabinet -- that effectively ruled Japan in 1945. Japan's leaders had not seriously considered surrendering prior to that day. Unconditional surrender (what the Allies were demanding) was a bitter pill to swallow. The United States and Great Britain were already convening war crimes trials in Europe. What if they decided to put the emperor -- who was believed to be divine -- on trial? What if they got rid of the emperor and changed the form of government entirely? Even though the situation was bad in the summer of 1945, the leaders of Japan were not willing to consider giving up their traditions, their beliefs, or their way of life. Until August 9. What could have happened that caused them to so suddenly and decisively change their minds? What made them sit down to seriously discuss surrender for the first time after 14 years of war?

It could not have been Nagasaki. The bombing of Nagasaki occurred in the late morning of August 9, after the Supreme Council had already begun meeting to discuss surrender, and word of the bombing only reached Japan's leaders in the early afternoon -- after the meeting of the Supreme Council had been adjourned in deadlock and the full cabinet had been called to take up the discussion. Based on timing alone, Nagasaki can't have been what motivated them.

Hiroshima isn't a very good candidate either. It came 74 hours -- more than three days -- earlier. What kind of crisis takes three days to unfold? The hallmark of a crisis is a sense of impending disaster and the overwhelming desire to take action now. How could Japan's leaders have felt that Hiroshima touched off a crisis and yet not meet to talk about the problem for three days?

President John F. Kennedy was sitting up in bed reading the morning papers at about 8:45 am on October 16, 1962 when McGeorge Bundy, his national security advisor, came in to inform him that the Soviet Union was secretly putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. Within two hours and forty-five minutes a special committee had been created, its members selected, contacted, brought to the White House, and were seated around the cabinet table to discuss what should be done.

President Harry Truman was vacationing in Independence, Missouri on June 25, 1950 when North Korea sent its troops across the 38th parallel, invading South Korea. Secretary of State Acheson called Truman that Saturday morning to give him the news. Within 24 hours, Truman had flown halfway across the United States and was seated at Blair House (the White House was undergoing renovations) with his top military and political advisors talking about what to do.

Even General George Brinton McClellan -- the Union commander of the Army of the Potomac in 1863 during the American Civil War, of whom President Lincoln said sadly, "He's got the slows" -- wasted only 12 hours when he was given a captured copy of General Robert E. Lee's orders for the invasion of Maryland.

These leaders responded -- as leaders in any country would -- to the imperative call that a crisis creates. They each took decisive steps in a short period of time. How can we square this sort of behavior with the actions of Japan's leaders? If Hiroshima really touched off a crisis that eventually forced the Japanese to surrender after fighting for 14 years, why did it take them three days to sit down to discuss it?

One might argue that the delay is perfectly logical. Perhaps they only came to realize the importance of the bombing slowly. Perhaps they didn't know it was a nuclear weapon and when they did realize it and understood the terrible effects such a weapon could have, they naturally concluded they had to surrender. Unfortunately, this explanation doesn't square with the evidence.

First, Hiroshima's governor reported to Tokyo on the very day Hiroshima was bombed that about a third of the population had been killed in the attack and that two thirds of the city had been destroyed. This information didn't change over the next several days. So the outcome -- the end result of the bombing -- was clear from the beginning. Japan's leaders knew roughly the outcome of the attack on the first day, yet they still did not act.

Second, the preliminary report prepared by the Army team that investigated the Hiroshima bombing, the one that gave details about what had happened there, was not delivered until August 10. It didn't reach Tokyo, in other words, until after the decision to surrender had already been taken. Although their verbal report was delivered (to the military) on August 8, the details of the bombing were not available until two days later. The decision to surrender was therefore not based on a deep appreciation of the horror at Hiroshima.

Third, the Japanese military understood, at least in a rough way, what nuclear weapons were. Japan had a nuclear weapons program. Several of the military men mention the fact that it was a nuclear weapon that destroyed Hiroshima in their diaries. General Anami Korechika, minster of war, even went to consult with the head of the Japanese nuclear weapons program on the night of August 7. The idea that Japan's leaders didn't know about nuclear weapons doesn't hold up.

Finally, one other fact about timing creates a striking problem. On August 8, Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori went to Premier Suzuki Kantaro and asked that the Supreme Council be convened to discuss the bombing of Hiroshima, but its members declined. So the crisis didn't grow day by day until it finally burst into full bloom on August 9. Any explanation of the actions of Japan's leaders that relies on the "shock" of the bombing of Hiroshima has to account for the fact that they considered a meeting to discuss the bombing on August 8, made a judgment that it was too unimportant, and then suddenly decided to meet to discuss surrender the very next day. Either they succumbed to some sort of group schizophrenia, or some other event was the real motivation to discuss surrender.

Scale

Historically, the use of the Bomb may seem like the most important discrete event of the war. From the contemporary Japanese perspective, however, it might not have been so easy to distinguish the Bomb from other events. It is, after all, difficult to distinguish a single drop of rain in the midst of a hurricane.

In the summer of 1945, the U.S. Army Air Force carried out one of the most intense campaigns of city destruction in the history of the world. Sixty-eight cities in Japan were attacked and all of them were either partially or completely destroyed. An estimated 1.7 million people were made homeless, 300,000 were killed, and 750,000 were wounded. Sixty-six of these raids were carried out with conventional bombs, two with atomic bombs. The destruction caused by conventional attacks was huge. Night after night, all summer long, cities would go up in smoke. In the midst of this cascade of destruction, it would not be surprising if this or that individual attack failed to make much of an impression -- even if it was carried out with a remarkable new type of weapon.

A B-29 bomber flying from the Mariana Islands could carry -- depending on the location of the target and the altitude of attack -- somewhere between 16,000 and 20,000 pounds of bombs. A typical raid consisted of 500 bombers. This means that the typical conventional raid was dropping 4 to 5 kilotons of bombs on each city. (A kiloton is a thousand tons and is the standard measure of the explosive power of a nuclear weapon. The Hiroshima bomb measured 16.5 kilotons, the Nagasaki bomb 20 kilotons.) Given that many bombs spread the destruction evenly (and therefore more effectively), while a single, more powerful bomb wastes much of its power at the center of the explosion -- re-bouncing the rubble, as it were -- it could be argued that some of the conventional raids approached the destruction of the two atomic bombings.

The first of the conventional raids, a night attack on Tokyo on March 9-10, 1945, remains the single most destructive attack on a city in the history of war. Something like 16 square miles of the city were burned out. An estimated 120,000 Japanese lost their lives -- the single highest death toll of any bombing attack on a city.

We often imagine, because of the way the story is told, that the bombing of Hiroshima was far worse. We imagine that the number of people killed was off the charts. But if you graph the number of people killed in all 68 cities bombed in the summer of 1945, you find that Hiroshima was second in terms of civilian deaths. If you chart the number of square miles destroyed, you find that Hiroshima was fourth. If you chart the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima was 17th. Hiroshima was clearly within the parameters of the conventional attacks carried out that summer.

From our perspective, Hiroshima seems singular, extraordinary. But if you put yourself in the shoes of Japan's leaders in the three weeks leading up to the attack on Hiroshima, the picture is considerably different. If you were one of the key members of Japan's government in late July and early August, your experience of city bombing would have been something like this: On the morning of July 17, you would have been greeted by reports that during the night four cities had been attacked: Oita, Hiratsuka, Numazu, and Kuwana. Of these, Oita and Hiratsuka were more than 50 percent destroyed. Kuwana was more than 75 percent destroyed and Numazu was hit even more severely, with something like 90 percent of the city burned to the ground.

Three days later you have woken to find that three more cities had been attacked. Fukui was more than 80 percent destroyed. A week later and three more cities have been attacked during the night. Two days later and six more cities were attacked in one night, including Ichinomiya, which was 75 percent destroyed. On August 2, you would have arrived at the office to reports that four more cities have been attacked. And the reports would have included the information that Toyama (roughly the size of Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1945), had been 99.5 percent destroyed. Virtually the entire city had been leveled. Four days later and four more cities have been attacked. On August 6, only one city, Hiroshima, was attacked but reports say that the damage was great and a new type bomb was used. How much would this one new attack have stood out against the background of city destruction that had been going on for weeks?

In the three weeks prior to Hiroshima, 26 cities were attacked by the U.S. Army Air Force. Of these, eight -- or almost a third -- were as completely or more completely destroyed than Hiroshima (in terms of the percentage of the city destroyed). The fact that Japan had 68 cities destroyed in the summer of 1945 poses a serious challenge for people who want to make the bombing of Hiroshima the cause of Japan's surrender. The question is: If they surrendered because a city was destroyed, why didn't they surrender when those other 66 cities were destroyed?

If Japan's leaders were going to surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would expect to find that they cared about the bombing of cities in general, that the city attacks put pressure on them to surrender. But this doesn't appear to be so. Two days after the bombing of Tokyo, retired Foreign Minister Shidehara Kijuro expressed a sentiment that was apparently widely held among Japanese high-ranking officials at the time. Shidehara opined that "the people would gradually get used to being bombed daily. In time their unity and resolve would grow stronger." In a letter to a friend he said it was important for citizens to endure the suffering because "even if hundreds of thousands of noncombatants are killed, injured, or starved, even if millions of buildings are destroyed or burned," additional time was needed for diplomacy. It is worth remembering that Shidehara was a moderate.

At the highest levels of government -- in the Supreme Council -- attitudes were apparently the same. Although the Supreme Council discussed the importance of the Soviet Union remaining neutral, they didn't have a full-dress discussion about the impact of city bombing. In the records that have been preserved, city bombing doesn't even get mentioned during Supreme Council discussions except on two occasions: once in passing in May 1945 and once during the wide-ranging discussion on the night of August 9. Based on the evidence, it is difficult to make a case that Japan's leaders thought that city bombing -- compared to the other pressing matters involved in running a war -- had much significance at all.

General Anami on August 13 remarked that the atomic bombings were no more menacing than the fire-bombing that Japan had endured for months. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no worse than the fire bombings, and if Japan's leaders did not consider them important enough to discuss in depth, how can Hiroshima and Nagasaki have coerced them to surrender?

Strategic Significance

If the Japanese were not concerned with city bombing in general or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in particular, what were they concerned with? The answer is simple: the Soviet Union.

The Japanese were in a relatively difficult strategic situation. They were nearing the end of a war they were losing. Conditions were bad. The Army, however, was still strong and well-supplied. Nearly 4 million men were under arms and 1.2 million of those were guarding Japan's home islands.

Even the most hardline leaders in Japan's government knew that the war could not go on. The question was not whether to continue, but how to bring the war to a close under the best terms possible. The Allies (the United States, Great Britain, and others -- the Soviet Union, remember, was still neutral) were demanding "unconditional surrender." Japan's leaders hoped that they might be able to figure out a way to avoid war crimes trials, keep their form of government, and keep some of the territories they'd conquered: Korea, Vietnam, Burma, parts of Malaysia and Indonesia, a large portion of eastern China, and numerous islands in the Pacific.

They had two plans for getting better surrender terms; they had, in other words, two strategic options. The first was diplomatic. Japan had signed a five-year neutrality pact with the Soviets in April of 1941, which would expire in 1946. A group consisting mostly of civilian leaders and led by Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori hoped that Stalin might be convinced to mediate a settlement between the United States and its allies on the one hand, and Japan on the other. Even though this plan was a long shot, it reflected sound strategic thinking. After all, it would be in the Soviet Union's interest to make sure that the terms of the settlement were not too favorable to the United States: any increase in U.S. influence and power in Asia would mean a decrease in Russian power and influence.

The second plan was military, and most of its proponents, led by the Army Minister Anami Korechika, were military men. They hoped to use Imperial Army ground troops to inflict high casualties on U.S. forces when they invaded. If they succeeded, they felt, they might be able to get the United States to offer better terms. This strategy was also a long shot. The United States seemed deeply committed to unconditional surrender. But since there was, in fact, concern in U.S. military circles that the casualties in an invasion would be prohibitive, the Japanese high command's strategy was not entirely off the mark.

One way to gauge whether it was the bombing of Hiroshima or the invasion and declaration of war by the Soviet Union that caused Japan's surrender is to compare the way in which these two events affected the strategic situation. After Hiroshima was bombed on August 8, both options were still alive. It would still have been possible to ask Stalin to mediate (and Takagi's diary entries from August 8 show that at least some of Japan's leaders were still thinking about the effort to get Stalin involved). It would also still have been possible to try to fight one last decisive battle and inflict heavy casualties. The destruction of Hiroshima had done nothing to reduce the preparedness of the troops dug in on the beaches of Japan's home islands. There was now one fewer city behind them, but they were still dug in, they still had ammunition, and their military strength had not been diminished in any important way. Bombing Hiroshima did not foreclose either of Japan's strategic options.

The impact of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin Island was quite different, however. Once the Soviet Union had declared war, Stalin could no longer act as a mediator -- he was now a belligerent. So the diplomatic option was wiped out by the Soviet move. The effect on the military situation was equally dramatic. Most of Japan's best troops had been shifted to the southern part of the home islands. Japan's military had correctly guessed that the likely first target of an American invasion would be the southernmost island of Kyushu. The once proud Kwangtung army in Manchuria, for example, was a shell of its former self because its best units had been shifted away to defend Japan itself. When the Russians invaded Manchuria, they sliced through what had once been an elite army and many Russian units only stopped when they ran out of gas. The Soviet 16th Army -- 100,000 strong -- launched an invasion of the southern half of Sakhalin Island. Their orders were to mop up Japanese resistance there, and then -- within 10 to 14 days -- be prepared to invade Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan's home islands. The Japanese force tasked with defending Hokkaido, the 5th Area Army, was under strength at two divisions and two brigades, and was in fortified positions on the east side of the island. The Soviet plan of attack called for an invasion of Hokkaido from the west.

It didn't take a military genius to see that, while it might be possible to fight a decisive battle against one great power invading from one direction, it would not be possible to fight off two great powers attacking from two different directions. The Soviet invasion invalidated the military's decisive battle strategy, just as it invalidated the diplomatic strategy. At a single stroke, all of Japan's options evaporated. The Soviet invasion was strategically decisive -- it foreclosed both of Japan's options -- while the bombing of Hiroshima (which foreclosed neither) was not.

The Soviet declaration of war also changed the calculation of how much time was left for maneuver. Japanese intelligence was predicting that U.S. forces might not invade for months. Soviet forces, on the other hand, could be in Japan proper in as little as 10 days. The Soviet invasion made a decision on ending the war extremely time sensitive.

And Japan's leaders had reached this conclusion some months earlier. In a meeting of the Supreme Council in June 1945, they said that Soviet entry into the war "would determine the fate of the Empire." Army Deputy Chief of Staff Kawabe said, in that same meeting, "The absolute maintenance of peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is imperative for the continuation of the war."

Japan's leaders consistently displayed disinterest in the city bombing that was wrecking their cities. And while this may have been wrong when the bombing began in March of 1945, by the time Hiroshima was hit, they were certainly right to see city bombing as an unimportant sideshow, in terms of strategic impact. When Truman famously threatened to visit a "rain of ruin" on Japanese cities if Japan did not surrender, few people in the United States realized that there was very little left to destroy. By August 7, when Truman's threat was made, only 10 cities larger than 100,000 people remained that had not already been bombed. Once Nagasaki was attacked on August 9, only nine cities were left. Four of those were on the northernmost island of Hokkaido, which was difficult to bomb because of the distance from Tinian Island where American planes were based. Kyoto, the ancient capital of Japan, had been removed from the target list by Secretary of War Henry Stimson because of its religious and symbolic importance. So despite the fearsome sound of Truman's threat, after Nagasaki was bombed only four major cities remained which could readily have been hit with atomic weapons.

The thoroughness and extent of the U.S. Army Air Force's campaign of city bombing can be gauged by the fact that they had run through so many of Japan's cities that they were reduced to bombing "cities" of 30,000 people or fewer. In the modern world, 30,000 is no more than a large town.

Of course it would always have been possible to re-bomb cities that had already been bombed with firebombs. But these cities were, on average, already 50 percent destroyed. Or the United States could have bombed smaller cities with atomic weapons. There were, however, only six smaller cities (with populations between 30,000 and 100,000) which had not already been bombed. Given that Japan had already had major bombing damage done to 68 cities, and had, for the most part, shrugged it off, it is perhaps not surprising that Japan's leaders were unimpressed with the threat of further bombing. It was not strategically compelling.

A Convenient Story

Despite the existence of these three powerful objections, the traditional interpretation still retains a strong hold on many people's thinking, particularly in the United States. There is real resistance to looking at the facts. But perhaps this should not be surprising. It is worth reminding ourselves how emotionally convenient the traditional explanation of Hiroshima is -- both for Japan and the United States. Ideas can have persistence because they are true, but unfortunately, they can also persist because they are emotionally satisfying: They fill an important psychic need. For example, at the end of the war the traditional interpretation of Hiroshima helped Japan's leaders achieve a number of important political aims, both domestic and international.

Put yourself in the shoes of the emperor. You've just led your country through a disastrous war. The economy is shattered. Eighty percent of your cities have been bombed and burned. The Army has been pummeled in a string of defeats. The Navy has been decimated and confined to port. Starvation is looming. The war, in short, has been a catastrophe and, worst of all, you've been lying to your people about how bad the situation really is. They will be shocked by news of surrender. So which would you rather do? Admit that you failed badly? Issue a statement that says that you miscalculated spectacularly, made repeated mistakes, and did enormous damage to the nation? Or would you rather blame the loss on an amazing scientific breakthrough that no one could have predicted? At a single stroke, blaming the loss of the war on the atomic bomb swept all the mistakes and misjudgments of the war under the rug. The Bomb was the perfect excuse for having lost the war. No need to apportion blame; no court of enquiry need be held. Japan's leaders were able to claim they had done their best. So, at the most general level the Bomb served to deflect blame from Japan's leaders.

But attributing Japan's defeat to the Bomb also served three other specific political purposes. First, it helped to preserve the legitimacy of the emperor. If the war was lost not because of mistakes but because of the enemy's unexpected miracle weapon, then the institution of the emperor might continue to find support within Japan.

Second, it appealed to international sympathy. Japan had waged war aggressively, and with particular brutality toward conquered peoples. Its behavior was likely to be condemned by other nations. Being able to recast Japan as a victimized nation -- one that had been unfairly bombed with a cruel and horrifying instrument of war -- would help to offset some of the morally repugnant things Japan's military had done. Drawing attention to the atomic bombings helped to paint Japan in a more sympathetic light and deflect support for harsh punishment.

Finally, saying that the Bomb won the war would please Japan's American victors. The American occupation did not officially end in Japan until 1952, and during that time the United States had the power to change or remake Japanese society as they saw fit. During the early days of the occupation, many Japanese officials worried that the Americans intended to abolish the institution of the emperor. And they had another worry. Many of Japan's top government officials knew that they might face war crimes trials (the war crimes trials against Germany's leaders were already underway in Europe when Japan surrendered). Japanese historian Asada Sadao has said that in many of the postwar interviews "Japanese officials... were obviously anxious to please their American questioners." If the Americans wanted to believe that the Bomb won the war, why disappoint them?

Attributing the end of the war to the atomic bomb served Japan's interests in multiple ways. But it also served U.S. interests. If the Bomb won the war, then the perception of U.S. military power would be enhanced, U.S. diplomatic influence in Asia and around the world would increase, and U.S. security would be strengthened. The $2 billion spent to build it would not have been wasted. If, on the other hand, the Soviet entry into the war was what caused Japan to surrender, then the Soviets could claim that they were able to do in four days what the United States was unable to do in four years, and the perception of Soviet military power and Soviet diplomatic influence would be enhanced. And once the Cold War was underway, asserting that the Soviet entry had been the decisive factor would have been tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

It is troubling to consider, given the questions raised here, that the evidence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is at the heart of everything we think about nuclear weapons. This event is the bedrock of the case for the importance of nuclear weapons. It is crucial to their unique status, the notion that the normal rules do not apply to nuclear weapons. It is an important measure of nuclear threats: Truman's threat to visit a "rain of ruin" on Japan was the first explicit nuclear threat. It is key to the aura of enormous power that surrounds the weapons and makes them so important in international relations.

But what are we to make of all those conclusions if the traditional story of Hiroshima is called into doubt? Hiroshima is the center, the point from which all other claims and assertions radiate out. Yet the story we have been telling ourselves seems pretty far removed from the facts. What are we to think about nuclear weapons if this enormous first accomplishment -- the miracle of Japan's sudden surrender -- turns out to be a myth?

 

 *Correction: This article originally referred to the U.S. Air Force, instead of the U.S. Army Air Force.


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_nuclear_world_war_ii?page=full

Re: Immigration Invasion - The Remedy When The Federal Government Refuses To Do Its Duty


This is retarded.
Immigrating is NOT invading.

Regard$,
--MJ

STUDENT: Where in the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. government empowered to control immigration?
TEACHER: Nowhere.
STUDENT: How then does the government justify its many immigration laws and their enforcement?
TEACHER: Over time, starting in the late nineteenth century, the executive took unconstitutional actions to control immigration. When these actions were challenged in federal courts, the judges allowed them to stand by overturning the most fundamental principle of American government -- that the government possesses only constitutionally enumerated powers -- and by trotting out a doctrine of inherent sovereign power that is wholly alien to the U.S. Constitution's design and explicit provisions (see, for example, Amendments 9 and 10). Like a multitude of other powers the U.S. executive branch now exercises, the power to control immigration represents nothing but executive usurpation of powers that were never granted to it by the fundamental law of the land. In short, it controls immigration because it has got away with doing so for a long time and continues to get away with it. If we view the constitution as amounting to whatever the people will tolerate, we may say that the government's control of immigration is constitutional, but in no other sense is it so. -- Robert Higgs



At 07:41 PM 6/3/2013, you wrote:



June 2, 2013 by Publius Huldah

Immigration Invasion - The Remedy When The Federal Government Refuses To Do Its Duty

17 Comments

 

82



Article IV, §4, U.S. Constitution, requires The United States to protect each of the States against Invasion. It says:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion… [emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 43 (3rd para under 6.), James Madison says of this provision:

A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it…

Article I, §8, clause 15 grants to Congress the power to provide for calling forth the Militia to [among other things] "repel Invasions".

But the federal government has persistently refused to call forth the Militia to protect the States on our Southern Border from Invasion!

So! What are States to do when their Lands are invaded, their citizens murdered and kidnapped, their young corrupted by drug-trafficking invaders, and their budgets imploded from unconstitutional federal mandates that we subsidize the invaders? Are the States to sit with folded hands and be destroyed because the federal government refuses to perform its constitutional duty? No!
We are Americans! If the federal government refuses to perform its constitutional duty to call out the Militia to protect the States against Invasion, then the States must perform that Duty. And as shown below, they have both an implied and an expressly retained authority to do so.

Article 1, §8, clause 16 grants to Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States. This clause reserves to the States the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

What is the "Militia"? Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) tells us:

The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

So! One of the functions of the Militia – that body of weekend warriors trained by the States and whose officers are chosen by the States, is to defend the States against Invasions. As we have seen, Congress is authorized to provide for calling the Militia into service to repel invasions. But what if the federal government refuses to act?

Alexander Hamilton provides the answer in Federalist No. 29. Hamilton shows that one of the purposes of the Militia is to protect the citizens of the States from threats to their liberties posed by the federal government (7th & 12th paras); and that the States' reservation of power to appoint the Officers secures to them an influence over the Militia greater than that of the federal government (9th para). On the use of the Militia to repel Invasions, Hamilton says (13th para):

…it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy…

True, it was contemplated that the "United States" would normally be the entity which protects the States against Invasion (Art. IV, §4). But when the federal government has demonstrated its determination that the States ARE TO BE OVERRUN
BY INVADERS, then the States are within their Retained Sovereign Rights to employ the Militia to defend their People from those into whose hands the federal government has demonstrated its determination to deliver them.

Furthermore, Article I, Sec. 10, last clause: says:

No State shall …keep Troops…in time of Peace…or engage in War, unless actually invaded…

So, clearly, the Sovereign States
may use their State Militias and engage in War to defend themselves from the Invasions.

In Federalist No. 46 (7th & 8th paras), James Madison speaks of conflicts between the federal government and the States, caused by encroachments of the former. He does not counsel subservience by the States. He does not counsel submitting the issue to a federal judge! Instead, Madison describes various forms of non-violent Resistance properly employed by the States, alone or in unison with other States:

…and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

In Madison's magnificent 9th para, he speaks of a federal government so consumed with madness that it sends its regular army against the States:

…Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate [State] governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition [of the federal government], more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of… [italics added]

Madison would be disappointed that we permitted this current state of affairs to arise:

…Let us rather no longer insult them [the American People] with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

But we must start from where we are. We can restore our constitutional republic. We can rein in a lawless federal government which usurps powers even while refusing to perform its basic constitutional duty of protecting the States from Invasion.

The Federalist Papers were written to explain the proposed Constitution and to induce The People to ratify it. Madison is the "Father of The Constitution". These are the highest authority on the meaning of our Constitution. Clearly, the States may use their Militia to defend their borders, and States may assist one another in this endeavor. And We the People must throw out of office the federal representatives and officials who refuse to perform their constitutionally mandated Duty to defend our borders. Madison writes in Federalist No. 44 (17th para) respecting remedies against a lawless federal government:

…and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers….

When the federal government refuses to obey the Constitution, the States must enforce it. And WE the People must throw the faithless ones out of office. THIS is how we restore our constitutional Republic.



Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/immigration-invasion-the-remedy-when-the-federal-government-refuses-to-do-its-duty/#ixzz2VBBmGLYX

Why Women are Prohibited to Get Educated in Islam




Because one has to be really ignorant to adhere to such a backwards ideology?

 

 

 

Why Women are Prohibited to Get Educated in Islam

 

In Islam, women are a slave-like entity to obey and serve men. So, wasteful, and even risky, to educate and enlighten them, lest they defy men.


In Islam, jihad is the best form of worship. What is jihad? Islamic jihad is a barbaric incitement to commit indiscriminate and large-scale homicide against non-Muslims: killing of kafirs, plundering their wealth, occupying their land and other properties by sword, fire and rape.

Islam does not encourage its followers to undertake good education, to create an able workforce, for creating wealth. Muslims under Prophet Muhammad earned a living, and accumulated wealth, through jihad raids on non-Muslim caravans and communities, which became an ideal blueprint for Muslim societies to follow. So, in reality, Islamic jihad is an economic enterprise.

Since Muslim women are segregated from men, they cannot go out and participate in the cruel and brutal acts of jihad; so women have no importance in the fiercely male-dominated Muslim society. All the benefits are supposed to be enjoyed by men alone and women are to serve the males as slaves. They must stay indoors like domesticated animals. Their duty is to satiate the lust of men and breed jihadis.

So said Arlene Peck, in his article "Arab Men Treat Their Farm Animals Better Than Their Women":

"The animals and woman do, however, have one thing in common: both are used for breeding. In the case of Islamic fundamentalists, women are used as breeding stock for future terrorists, or now, often, as suicide bombers. Come to think of it, goats and camels are treated better. They're not forced to wear those hot and repressive burkas."[1]

According to Islamic theology, women are not equal to men, as women are deficient in intelligence and cannot equal men in piety (Bukhari Vol. 1:Book 6:No 301). They inherit only half that of men.

Women are also considered unclean in Islam as says the Quran (4:43): "Believers, approach not prayers with a mind befogged or intoxicated until you understand what you utter, nor when you are polluted, until after you have bathed. If you are ill, or on a journey, or come from answering the call of nature, or you have touched a woman, and you find no water, then take for yourselves clean dirt, and rub your faces and hands."

Hadiths also compare them with unclean pigs and dogs: "Narrated 'Aisha: The things which annual prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said, "You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet." (Bukhari Vol 1, Book 9 No.493)

Moreover, most of the women will be the dwellers of hell (Bukhari 1.22.28, Muslim 1.142)

In light of the above status of women in Muslim society, it is unnecessary or unwise to train women that may enable them to be economically independent. For this reason, women are discouraged from undertaking education in orthodox Muslim societies, such in Afghanistan under the Taliban, who restricted education to girls until the age of 8. As per the Prophet's marriage to Aisha, after this age, girls become adults. So, their duty thereafter is to stay indoors and serve men.

Education may also enlighten them about their rights and dignity, which would make them defy men and protest the oppressions heaped upon them by men. So the most appropriate step is to keep them illiterate so as to ensure that they remain sex-slaves of men. Nonetheless, due to external pressure and influence, women are being enlightened by receiving education in many Islamic countries, and they have started questioning Islam. We hope to these developments in a future article.

 









--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Another Obama Assault on Free Speech





Another Obama Assault on Free Speech

Posted By Robert Spencer On June 3, 2013

The Obama Administration's latest assault on the freedom of speech is so audacious that it leaves me speechless – and that's the idea.

According to Politico, Bill Killian, the Obama-appointed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, "is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam." Said Killian: "We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we're here, they're going to be protected."

Killian and an unnamed FBI special agent are holding a meeting Tuesday evening with local Muslim groups in Manchester, Tennessee. "This is an educational effort with civil rights laws," Killian explained, "as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion. This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are."

Killian offered an example: "a recent controversy where a local Tennessee politician posted a photo of a man aiming a shotgun at the camera with the caption 'How to wink at a Muslim.'" He asked the rhetorical question: "If a Muslim had posted 'How to Wink at a Christian,' could you imagine what would have happened?"

The problem, however, is that neither the Obama Administration nor Islamic supremacist groups that have been campaigning against the freedom of speech for years – notably the 57-government Organization of Islamic Cooperation – have ever drawn any kind of distinction between genuinely threatening speech (which the shotgun photo may arguably have been) and honest analysis of how jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism.

On the contrary, they conflate the two, thus smearing as "hateful" all examination of the motives and goals of the jihad terrorists who have vowed to destroy the United States and conquer the free world. Obama did this in 2011 when he mandated the scrubbing of counter-terror training materials of the truth about Islam and jihad. Truth about the exhortations to warfare and conquest in the Qur'an and the teachings of Muhammad was now "hate" and "bigotry," to be jettisoned.

And Obama, of course, has been at war with this most fundamental of freedoms for quite some time. In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 16/18, with the support of the Obama administration. It called upon Western states to pass laws that would criminalize "defamation of religion" – i.e., criticism of Islam. This was no isolated incident. Right after the Benghazi jihad massacre, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed to have the producer of a video about Muhammad – the one that Administration officials falsely blamed for the attack — "arrested and prosecuted." The filmmaker is still the only person in prison for those attacks, ostensibly for a minor parole violation, but clearly for the crime of exercising his freedom of speech. And those are just two of the many ways in which the Obama Administration has shown itself to be a foe of the First Amendment.

Nonetheless, the First Amendment still remains, for now – at least until a case involving the question of whether what the Administration deems to be "hate speech" enjoys constitutional protection comes before an Obama-majority Supreme Court. But the idea of circumventing it using existing civil rights laws is a new wrinkle. "The Department of Justice," Politico noted, "did not respond Friday to a question about what guidelines it draws concerning offensive speech and Islam, or whether the department believes that civil rights statutes could be used to stifle criticism of Islam."

It is doubtful that they didn't respond because the thought of doing such a thing had never crossed anyone's mind there. In July 2012, then-Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division was asked by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ): "Will you tell us here today that this Administration's Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?" Perez (whom Obama has now nominated to be Secretary of Labor) refused to rule out such a proposal – strongly suggesting by his refusal that the Obama Administration is indeed contemplating ways to circumvent the First Amendment and outlaw criticism of Islam.

If this ever happens, it's all over. If the U.S. adopts any kind of law criminalizing criticism of Islam, that would be the end of any resistance to jihad, as we will be rendered mute and thus defenseless against its advance. And while this possibility still seems wildly farfetched to most people, it must be borne in mind that the First Amendment does not automatically enforce itself. If those charged with guarding and protecting it are determined to do away with it, they can hedge it around with nuances and exceptions that will render it as toothless and essentially void as the Second Amendment already is in many major cities.

The seminar in Tennessee is just one skirmish in a long war. But it is a war that most Americans have no idea is even being fought. And as Lenin and the Bolsheviks demonstrated, that is how determined and organized minorities subdue larger but careless or indifferent foes. If the mainstream media were doing their jobs, Bill Killian and his little workshop would be front page news nationwide, and Killian would be facing extremely tough questioning about his authoritarian tendencies and the anti-freedom agenda he is pursuing. That he is not, and that the mainstream media are largely indifferent to this story, will only hasten its demise.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and other pro-freedom organizations will be holding a demonstration for free speech on June 4th at 5:30pm Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Blvd, in Manchester, Tennessee. Then the DoJ event follows from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PMat the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Blvd, in Manchester. Please join us to stand for freedom.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/another-obama-assault-on-free-speech/

 










--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Immigration Invasion - The Remedy When The Federal Government Refuses To Do Its Duty




June 2, 2013 by Publius Huldah

Immigration Invasion - The Remedy When The Federal Government Refuses To Do Its Duty

17 Comments

 

82

Article IV, §4, U.S. Constitution, requires The United States to protect each of the States against Invasion. It says:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion… [emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 43 (3rd para under 6.), James Madison says of this provision:

A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it…

Article I, §8, clause 15 grants to Congress the power to provide for calling forth the Militia to [among other things] "repel Invasions".

But the federal government has persistently refused to call forth the Militia to protect the States on our Southern Border from Invasion!

So! What are States to do when their Lands are invaded, their citizens murdered and kidnapped, their young corrupted by drug-trafficking invaders, and their budgets imploded from unconstitutional federal mandates that we subsidize the invaders? Are the States to sit with folded hands and be destroyed because the federal government refuses to perform its constitutional duty? No!
We are Americans! If the federal government refuses to perform its constitutional duty to call out the Militia to protect the States against Invasion, then the States must perform that Duty. And as shown below, they have both an implied and an expressly retained authority to do so.

Article 1, §8, clause 16 grants to Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States. This clause reserves to the States the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

What is the "Militia"? Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) tells us:

The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

So! One of the functions of the Militia – that body of weekend warriors trained by the States and whose officers are chosen by the States, is to defend the States against Invasions. As we have seen, Congress is authorized to provide for calling the Militia into service to repel invasions. But what if the federal government refuses to act?

Alexander Hamilton provides the answer in Federalist No. 29. Hamilton shows that one of the purposes of the Militia is to protect the citizens of the States from threats to their liberties posed by the federal government (7th & 12th paras); and that the States' reservation of power to appoint the Officers secures to them an influence over the Militia greater than that of the federal government (9th para). On the use of the Militia to repel Invasions, Hamilton says (13th para):

…it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy…

True, it was contemplated that the "United States" would normally be the entity which protects the States against Invasion (Art. IV, §4). But when the federal government has demonstrated its determination that the States ARE TO BE OVERRUN
BY INVADERS, then the States are within their Retained Sovereign Rights to employ the Militia to defend their People from those into whose hands the federal government has demonstrated its determination to deliver them.

Furthermore, Article I, Sec. 10, last clause: says:

No State shall …keep Troops…in time of Peace…or engage in War, unless actually invaded…

So, clearly, the Sovereign States
may use their State Militias and engage in War to defend themselves from the Invasions.

In Federalist No. 46 (7th & 8th paras), James Madison speaks of conflicts between the federal government and the States, caused by encroachments of the former. He does not counsel subservience by the States. He does not counsel submitting the issue to a federal judge! Instead, Madison describes various forms of non-violent Resistance properly employed by the States, alone or in unison with other States:

…and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

In Madison's magnificent 9th para, he speaks of a federal government so consumed with madness that it sends its regular army against the States:

…Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate [State] governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition [of the federal government], more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of… [italics added]

Madison would be disappointed that we permitted this current state of affairs to arise:

…Let us rather no longer insult them [the American People] with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

But we must start from where we are. We can restore our constitutional republic. We can rein in a lawless federal government which usurps powers even while refusing to perform its basic constitutional duty of protecting the States from Invasion.

The Federalist Papers were written to explain the proposed Constitution and to induce The People to ratify it. Madison is the "Father of The Constitution". These are the highest authority on the meaning of our Constitution. Clearly, the States may use their Militia to defend their borders, and States may assist one another in this endeavor. And We the People must throw out of office the federal representatives and officials who refuse to perform their constitutionally mandated Duty to defend our borders. Madison writes in Federalist No. 44 (17th para) respecting remedies against a lawless federal government:

…and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers….

When the federal government refuses to obey the Constitution, the States must enforce it. And WE the People must throw the faithless ones out of office. THIS is how we restore our constitutional Republic.



Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/immigration-invasion-the-remedy-when-the-federal-government-refuses-to-do-its-duty/#ixzz2VBBmGLYX









--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Nidal Hasan, Ft. Hood Muslim mass murderer will now get a free office and legal staff, after judge rules he is allowed to represent himself at trial




This muzzieshit should have been tried, convicted, and executed by now.
BareNakedIslam posted: "Why isn't he required to use the $278,000 in salary he's been getting since he massacred 13 soldiers and wounded 32 others? Most likely, this Muslim terrorist's only motive in representing himself is a desire to use the trial as a showcase for his anti-Am"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

Nidal Hasan, Ft. Hood Muslim mass murderer will now get a free office and legal staff, after judge rules he is allowed to represent himself at trial

by BareNakedIslam

Why isn't he required to use the $278,000 in salary he's been getting since he massacred 13 soldiers and wounded 32 others? Most likely, this Muslim terrorist's only motive in representing himself is a desire to use the trial as a showcase for his anti-American Islamic jihadist rants. Miami Newsday  Jury selection is set to […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | June 3, 2013 at 6:31 pm | Categories: Military stories | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-UgO

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/06/03/nidal-hasan-ft-hood-muslim-mass-murderer-will-now-get-a-free-office-and-legal-staff-after-judge-rules-he-is-allowed-to-represent-himself-at-trial/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Dunkin's Bacon Doughnut Sandwiches Go Nationwide








--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Obama & Holder: ‘Stop Us If You Can!’





Sard posted: " By Sher Zieve If the recent and growing scandals plaguing the tyrannical ObamaGov weren't so serious, the idiotic antics of those at the top of the D.C. food chain would be almost comical. But, they are and their antics are not at all humorous. They are"

New post on therightplanet.com

Obama & Holder: 'Stop Us If You Can!'

by Sard

By Sher Zieve If the recent and growing scandals plaguing the tyrannical ObamaGov weren't so serious, the idiotic antics of those at the top of the D.C. food chain would be almost comical. But, they are and their antics are not at all humorous. They are, in fact, criminal. While Obama tells the gullible and […]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.therightplanet.com/2013/06/obama-holder-stop-us-if-you-can/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.