AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Lynn welcomed legislation moving through the House and Senate aimed at combating chronic cost overruns, schedule slips and performance shortfalls in weapons purchases -- a goal embraced by Obama.

Questions from a conservative point of view:

1. Does it take 20,000 people, in addition to the 28,000 who already work for the Pentagon, to write defense contracts that include penalties for cost overruns or failure to deliver as promised and to audit the completed work?

2. Where will these 20,000 new hires work? There certainly is not room in the Pentagon for them.

3. In this area, given a large number of defense contractors who employ highly skilled people with security clearances doing various construction and maintenance tasks, providing computer and tech services, etc. at the bases and labs, etc., I wonder how many such highly qualified and skilled people will be willing to work on a year-to-year basis if multiple year contracts are not awarded?

Does anybody else get the feeling that some folks in government aren't thinking these things through real carefully before announcing grandiose plans?

I have stated my issues and your are incapable of a responding.

**** off tool.

Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

Murtha's power has had beneficial effects within his family. His brother, Robert C. "Kit" Murtha, built a longtime lobbying practice around clients seeking defense funds through the Appropriations Committee and became one of the top members of KSA, a lobbying firm whose contractor clients often received multimillion-dollar earmarks directed through the committee chairman.

Murtech received its contracts primarily from the Army Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville, Ala., which has been generous to companies in John Murtha's district and enjoys a close relationship with the congressman through a mutual interest in breast cancer research. The Army command has won at least $200 million a year in federal funding for the cancer research, of which Rep. Murtha is a stalwart supporter. In a program called Missiles to Mammograms the command has collaborated with a contractor in Murtha's district, Windber Medical Center, in a multimillion-dollar project to explore using missile-tracking technology to detect breast cancer.

The command awarded its first storage contract to Murtech without competitive bidding, paying $1.4 million a year. Robert Murtha Jr. says the no-bid arrangement was "the government's choice" and occurred because the government "got itself in a bind." A contract with SA Scientific of San Antonio was about to lapse, and the command needed Murtech, then serving as a subcontractor to the Texas company, to store materials for the military's Critical Reagents Program. The program produces lab materials that can be used in handheld devices and sensors to detect the presence of biological toxins.

1) If enemy combatants are captured and charged for committing war crimes, they will be put on trial. If they are guilty, they will face the justice of the court. That can include the death penalty. This is far far far from the "nothing" you refer.

2) Giving prisoners 3 meals a day does not mean we are weak on criminals.

3) Giving the accused the ability to defend themselves in court with a lawyer does not mean we are weak on criminals.

We've done fine without torture?

You're so naive!!!

These are Iraqi soldiers surrendering to US troops in the 1st gulf war. Why did they do this?

Because they knew that under US custody, they wouldn't be tortured or beat. They wouldn't be lined up and killed. That they would, as you put it, get their 'three square a day.'

Quote:

1) If enemy combatants are captured and charged for committing war crimes, they will be put on trial. If they are guilty, they will face the justice of the court. That can include the death penalty. This is far far far from the "nothing" you refer.

2) Giving prisoners 3 meals a day does not mean we are weak on criminals.

3) Giving the accused the ability to defend themselves in court with a lawyer does not mean we are weak on criminals.

Can you name even one time in our history when POW's were allowed a lawyer?

Can you name even one time when enemy troops captured on the battlefield were allowed a trial in a civilian court?

It has never happened.

Quote:

1) If enemy combatants are captured and charged for committing war crimes, they will be put on trial. If they are guilty, they will face the justice of the court. That can include the death penalty. This is far far far from the "nothing" you refer.

2) Giving prisoners 3 meals a day does not mean we are weak on criminals.

3) Giving the accused the ability to defend themselves in court with a lawyer does not mean we are weak on criminals.

Can you name even one time in our history when POW's were allowed a lawyer?

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

PARAGRAPH 2. -- PREPARATION AND EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS

The conditions necessary for the drawing up of legal documents intended for prisoners of war or executed by them depend on national legislation (4).
[p.380] In practice, during the Second World War, the belligerents often adopted a special procedure for prisoners of war. This was all the more necessary because legal transactions which normally require the presence of the person concerned had to be executed by representation, particularly in the case of marriage by proxy which was permitted by certain Powers (5). Such a procedure could not be envisaged unless certain minimum formalities were carried out in order to afford the necessary safeguards. Furthermore, prisoners of war were not usually familiar with special legislation enacted in war-time. Therefore, in addition to the provision concerning the legalization of signatures which was already included in the 1929 text (Article 41, paragraph 2 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article'), the new Convention expressly grants prisoners of war the right to consult a lawyer.
A sufficiently wide interpretation should be given to this provision: the lawyer could be another prisoner of war, or a barrister or solicitor who is a national of the Detaining Power. If the prisoner of war requesting the consultation belongs to a labour detachment whereas the person he wishes to consult is in the main camp, he will be given permission to go there. It will also be possible for him to consult a lawyer who is a national of the Detaining Power, particularly if he wishes to draw up a will (6).

Do you resent America?

Not even a little. If I resented America I wouldn’t be happy that my daughter was married to a citizen of that country, would I? My grandfather admired America and said we could learn from it. And his American lawyers defended him and said the most amazing things. Other lawyers strongly criticize the actions of the Allied Forces. Those people treated my grandfather with great respect and he respected them, even as enemies.

Can you name even one time when enemy troops captured on the battlefield were allowed a trial in a civilian court?

It has never happened.

House bypasses governor’s veto to claim Oklahoma’s sovereignty
BY MICHAEL MCNUTT
Published: May 5, 2009
Modified: May 6, 2009 at 12:51 pm

Although Gov. Brad Henry vetoed similar legislation 10 days earlier, House members Monday again approved a resolution claiming Oklahoma’s sovereignty.

Unlike House Joint Resolution 1003, House Concurrent Resolution 1028 does not need the governor’s approval.

The House passed the measure 73-22. It now goes to the Senate.

"We’re going to get it done one way or the other,” said the resolutions’ author, Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City.

"I think our governor is out of step.”

House Democrats objected, saying the issue already had been taken up and had been vetoed, but House Speaker Pro Tempore Kris Steele, R-Shawnee, ruled the veto is not final action.

Key said he expects HCR 1028 will pass in the Senate. HJR 1003 earlier passed the House 83-18 and won approval in the Senate 29-18.

Henry vetoed HJR 1003 because he said it suggested, among other things, that Oklahoma should return federal tax dollars.

Key said HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to "get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.

Key said many federal laws violate the 10th Amendment, which says powers not delegated to the U.S. government "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution lists about 20 duties required of the U.S. government, he said.

Congress should not be providing bailouts to financial institutions and automakers, he said.

"We give all this money to all these different entities, including automakers, and now they’re talking about, ‘Well maybe it’s better to let them go bankrupt,’” Key said. "Well, maybe we should have let them go bankrupt before we gave them the money.”
http://www.newsok.com/house-bypasses-governors-veto-to-claim-oklahomas-sovereignty/article/3366762

Details thin on stimulus contracts
By Matt Kelley, USA TODAY
April 6,2009

WASHINGTON " Although President Obama has vowed that citizens will be able to track "every dime" of the $787 billion stimulus bill, a government website dedicated to the spending won't have details on contracts and grants until October and may not be complete until next spring " halfway through the program, administration officials said.

Recovery.gov now lists programs being funded by the stimulus money, but provides no details on who received the grants and contracts. Agencies won't report that data until Oct. 10, according to Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which manages the website.

Devaney told a House subcommittee Tuesday that it will be a challenge to have the site ready to present spending data in five months. He said after the hearing that the board doesn't have enough data storage capacity, for example.

Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, a Republican serving on the House Science and Technology subcommittee, criticized the administration's decision to require reporting of only the first two recipients of stimulus spending. Broun said that means if the money goes to a state and then a city, the identities of the city's contractors will be unavailable.

Devaney said that after the first data become available in October, the board will wait six to nine months for the White House Office of Management and Budget to issue new guidance on how far down the spending chain the money must be tracked. "I'm going to push them for as much data as possible," he said.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2009-05-06-stimulus_N.htm

Stimulus oversight left up to taxpayers
By Joseph Curl
Wednesday, May 6, 2009

So just who's tracking that $787 billion in taxpayer money that President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress are doling out? You are. Or you're supposed to be, anyway.

"We are, in essence, deputizing the entire American citizenry to help with the oversight of this program," said Rep. Brad Miller, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology's subcommittee on investigations and oversight.

So, too, said Earl Devaney, the ex-cop who's now chairman of the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board, charged with tracking the torrent of cash now pouring out of federal coffers.

"I'm going to have millions of citizens to help me," he said, comparing run-of-the-mill Americans to inspectors general, the high-ranking officials charged with ferreting out waste and abuse in federal agencies.

"I'm going to have a million little IGs running around," the chairman said Tuesday after his testimony before the subcommittee.

And perhaps that's just as well, given the turnout of the panel tasked with keeping track of thousands of millions of dollars. Just three of the 10 members bothered to show up for the subcommittee's second meeting, dramatically titled "Follow the Money Part II."

"These hearings are titled 'follow the money' after the character in the movie - and the book - 'All the President's Men,' " Mr. Miller said. "The Deep Throat character, he told [reporters Carl] Bernstein and [Bob] Woodward to trace the money back to find out where the corruption began.

"We hope this will not end up as anything as sordid as that was," he joked.

Still, the North Carolina Democrat said he realized that tracking so much money will be difficult, acknowledging that "we're trying to spend $500 billion quickly."

Mr. Devaney, though, said his board - made up of 10 IGs - has a dual mission: "First, the board is responsible for establishing and maintaining a Web site." Oh, and second, it's supposed to "help minimize fraud, waste or mismanagement."

Corrected paragraph: While Mr. Miller and the panel's top Republican were there, only Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, Pennsylvania Democrats, came to the hearing. Absent were Democratic Reps. Steven R. Rothman of New Jersey, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Charles A. Wilson of Ohio, Alan Grayson of Florida and Bart Gordon of Tennessee. Republican Rep. Ralph M. Hall of Texas also skipped the session, while Rep. Brian P. Bilbray of California dropped by for the final hour of the nearly three-hour hearing.

Still, to a sparse crowd, Mr. Miller got right to the point. "President Obama promised a level of transparency, through the Internet, Recovery.gov. ... How do you intend to provide that level of transparency, to see how - who actually got the contract to pour asphalt?"

"As I mentioned in my testimony," Mr. Devaney said, "that Web site is evolving. ... I would probably be the first to admit today the Web site doesn't give you that kind of information."

Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, the subcommittee's ranking Republican, noted that he voted against the $787 billion stimulus plan.

"Simply put, the American people need to know what they got for their money," he said. "Under the Obama budget, the national debt will double in five years and triple in 10."

Mr. Broun was most interested in Mr. Obama's claim that the recovery plan would create "or save" 4 million jobs, but noted that the number of jobs "saved" is likely unknowable and that since the president took office, 1.3 million jobs have been lost.

"How do you plan to verify the actual number of jobs created?" he asked.

"Sir, we haven't really received any information about that on the Web site," Mr. Devaney said.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/06/stimulus-oversight-left-up-to-taxpayers/

U.S. cities need national bailout agency:
Rohatyn
Wed May 6, 2009 6:34pm EDT
Reporter's Notebook

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The architect of the 1970s financial rescue of New York City said on Wednesday the federal government should create a powerful national agency to bail out dozens of floundering U.S. cities.

Felix Rohatyn, the chairman of New York's Municipal Assistance Corp. from 1975 to 1993, said at the Reuters Infrastructure Summit that policymakers should look to the Reconstruction Finance Corp. created in 1932 as a model to aid cities and states as they confront their biggest deficits in decades.
http://www.reuters.com/article/Infrastructure09/idUSTRE5457EC20090506

From the petitions and supporting papers it appears that prior to September 3, 1945, petitioner was the Commanding General of the Fourteenth Army Group of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippine Islands. On that date he surrendered to and became a prisoner of war of the United States Army Forces in Baguio, Philippine Islands. On September 25th, by order of respondent, Lieutenant General Wilhelm D. Styer, Commanding General of the United States Army Forces, Western Pacific, which command embraces the Philippine Islands, petitioner was served with a charge prepared by the Judge Advocate General's Department of the Army, purporting to charge petitioner with a violation of the law of war. On October 8, 1945, petitioner, after pleading not guilty to the charge, was held for trial before a military commission of five Army officers appointed by order of General Styer. The order appointed six Army officers, all lawyers, as defense counsel. Throughout the proceedings which followed, including those before this Court, defense counsel have demonstrated their professional skill and resourcefulness and their proper zeal for the defense with which they were charged.

Yamashita, a Japanese officer who was stripped of his POW status and forced to stand trial as a war criminal, had the assistance of several lawyers.

Quote:

Yamashita, a Japanese officer who was stripped of his POW status and forced to stand trial as a war criminal, had the assistance of several lawyers.

Thats the important part.
Now, if the govt truly believed in the rule of law, WHY was Yamashita stripped of his POW status?
He was an officer in the Japanese military, he was captured in uniform, and therefore was due all the rights and priveledges of any other POW.

The distinction is obvious. POWs are released after the hostilities are ended and cannot be punished for participating in the war, but POWs who have pending charges against them for war crimes are not released. They are forced to stand trial and, if convicted of a war crime, may be punished.