Holder admits 9 Øbama DOJ Officials worked for terrorist detainees

[Surf n Turf]

Feel Safe yet ?
SnT

Holder admits 9 Øbama DOJ Officials worked for terrorist detainees

Attorney General Eric Holder says nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department.
all the lawyers, according to Holder, are eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in.
one Obama appointee, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, formerly represented Osama bin Laden's driver, and another appointee, Jennifer Daskal, previously advocated for detainees at Human Rights Watch. Holder writes only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees, and four others either contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases.http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-84799487.html

[T-Rock]

Holder admits 9 Øbama DOJ Officials worked for terrorist detainees

Eric Holder's Law Firm Represented 18 Gitmo Detainees Pro Bono

[longrange1947]

Originally Posted by T-Rock

Eric Holder's Law Firm Represented 18 Gitmo Detainees Pro Bono

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/23...tmo-detainees/

Which is why I feel he is unqualified to hold the position he presently holds. There is a thing called "appearance of conflict of interest" I do believe.

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/23...tmo-detainees/

Which is why I feel he is unqualified to hold the position he presently holds. There is a thing called "appearance of conflict of interest" I do believe.

Exactly. The perception of impropriety is enough to sink political careers.

[Surf n Turf]

I am so relieved that there is no conflict here
“move along folks – nothing to see here ---
SnT

Unknown DOJ Lawyers Identified

A day after a conservative group released a video condemning the Justice Department for refusing to identify seven lawyers who previously represented or advocated for terror suspects, Fox News has uncovered the identities of the seven lawyers.
"Department of Justice attorneys work around the clock to keep this country safe, and it is offensive that their patriotism is being questioned,"
He also said that any suggestions of a "conflict of interest" are "an apparent misapprehension" of legal standards, adding that all political appointees have taken pledges to meet ethical standards.
As for the two lawyers who were named by Weich in his recent letter to Grassley, Daskal has "generally worked on policy issues related to detainees" while at the Justice Department
Weich said Katyal "has not worked on any Guantanamo detainee matters, but has participated in litigation involving detainees who continue to be detained" elsewhere.
The Obama Administration is not the first to hire lawyers who represented or advocated for terror suspects.
Pratik Shah, an assistant to the Solicitor General hired by the Bush Administration, was part of the WilmerHale team that put together arguments for the Boumediene v. Bush case.
Trisha Anderson, an adviser in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel who was also hired by the Bush Administration, was previously an attorney at Attorney General Eric Holder's former firm, Covington & Burling, where she helped represent 13 Yemeni detainees.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...rs-identified/

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by Surf n Turf

I am so relieved that there is no conflict here
“move along folks – nothing to see here ---
SnT

Unknown DOJ Lawyers Identified

A day after a conservative group released a video condemning the Justice Department for refusing to identify seven lawyers who previously represented or advocated for terror suspects, Fox News has uncovered the identities of the seven lawyers.
"Department of Justice attorneys work around the clock to keep this country safe, and it is offensive that their patriotism is being questioned,"
He also said that any suggestions of a "conflict of interest" are "an apparent misapprehension" of legal standards, adding that all political appointees have taken pledges to meet ethical standards.
As for the two lawyers who were named by Weich in his recent letter to Grassley, Daskal has "generally worked on policy issues related to detainees" while at the Justice Department
Weich said Katyal "has not worked on any Guantanamo detainee matters, but has participated in litigation involving detainees who continue to be detained" elsewhere.
The Obama Administration is not the first to hire lawyers who represented or advocated for terror suspects.
Pratik Shah, an assistant to the Solicitor General hired by the Bush Administration, was part of the WilmerHale team that put together arguments for the Boumediene v. Bush case.
Trisha Anderson, an adviser in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel who was also hired by the Bush Administration, was previously an attorney at Attorney General Eric Holder's former firm, Covington & Burling, where she helped represent 13 Yemeni detainees.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...rs-identified/

I have lost much of my faith in this country . I have seen God kicked out of the public. I have seen or heard of crap I never even worried about. We fire bombed German cities in WWII to break the German's will, and; we nuked two cities in Japan.

Now we pussy foot around worrying about if one damn so called civilian enemy sympathizer gets killed. I feel for those on AD in combat now. This Karzai needs to lead his men. I thought the northern alliance man had more balls?

[craigepo]

Here are some of Missouri's attorney ethical rules. Most jurisdictions' rules are the same or similar. As you will note below, you guys are right.

Generally speaking, an attorney needs to avoid the "appearance of impropriety".

Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client:

(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 4-1.6 and 4-1.9(c) that is material to the matter; unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known; or

(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest: General Rule
(a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 4-1.7 or 4-1.9, unless the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.

(b) When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client represented by the formerly associated lawyer and not currently represented by the firm, unless:

(1) the matter is the same or substantially related to that in which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and

(2) any lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by Rules 4-1.6 and 4-1.9(c) that is material to the matter.

(c) A disqualification prescribed by this Rule 4-1.10 may be waived by the affected client under the conditions stated in Rule 4-1.7.

(d) The disqualification of lawyers associated in a firm with former or current government lawyers is governed by Rule 4-1.11.

Rule 1.11 Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees
(a) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer who has formerly served as a public officer or employee of the government:

(1) is subject to Rule 4-1.9(c); and

(2) shall not otherwise represent a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the representation.

(b) When a lawyer is disqualified from representation under Rule 4-1.11(a), no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter unless:

(1) the disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and

(2) written notice is promptly given to the appropriate government agency to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule 4-1.11.

(c) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person. As used in this Rule 4-1.11, the term "confidential government information" means information that has been obtained under governmental authority and which, at the time this Rule 4-1.11 is applied, the government is prohibited by law from disclosing to the public or has a legal privilege not to disclose and which is not otherwise available to the public. A firm with which that lawyer is associated may undertake or continue representation in the matter only if the disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom.

(d) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer currently serving as a public officer or employee:

(1) is subject to Rules 4-1.7 and 4-1.9; and

(2) shall not:

(i) participate in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in private practice or nongovernmental employment, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing; or

(ii) negotiate for private employment with any person who is involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially, except that a lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge, other adjudicative officer, or arbitrator may negotiate for private employment as permitted by, and subject to the conditions stated in, Rule 4-1.12(b).

(e) A lawyer who also holds public office, whether full or part-time, shall not engage in activities in which his or her personal or professional interests are or foreseeably could be in conflict with his or her official duties or responsibilities.

(1) A lawyer holding public office shall not attempt to influence any agency of any political subdivision of which such lawyer is a public officer, other than as a part of his or her official duties or except as authorized in sections 105.450 to 105.496, RSMo.

(2) No lawyer in a firm in which a lawyer holding a public office is associated may undertake or continue representation in a matter in which the lawyer who holds public office would be disqualified, unless the lawyer holding public office is screened in the manner set forth in Rule 4-1.11(a).

(f) As used in this Rule 4-1.11, the term "matter" includes:

(1) any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter involving a specific party or parties, and

(2) any other matter covered by the conflict of interest rules of the appropriate government agency.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/mo/code/MO_CODE.HTM

[incarcerated]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...+Politics%2529

Republicans Want Holder to Address Omission in His Confirmation Questionnaire

Updated March 11, 2010
By Mike Levine
- FOXNews.com
Republicans on Capitol Hill say they are "deeply concerned" over news that, during his confirmation more than a year ago, Attorney General Eric Holder failed to notify them about a terrorism-related legal brief he helped craft.
Republicans on Capitol Hill say they are "deeply concerned" over news that, during his confirmation more than a year ago, Attorney General Eric Holder failed to notify them about a terrorism-related legal brief he helped craft.

"Not only was the attorney general required to provide the brief as part of his confirmation, but the opinions expressed in it go to the heart of his responsibilities in matters of national security," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Thursday. "This is an extremely serious matter and the attorney general will have to address it."

A Justice Department spokesman acknowledged that the brief "should have been disclosed as part of the confirmation process," but the spokesman insisted the omission was not intentional.

"In preparing thousands of pages for submission, it was unfortunately and inadvertently missed," Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said in a statement Wednesday, as reports of the omission began to emerge. "In any event, the attorney general has publicly discussed his positions on detention policy on many occasions, including at his confirmation hearing."

In fact, Holder discussed the issue at length during his confirmation hearings in January 2009, promising to fight terrorism "within the letter and the spirit of the Constitution."

"Adherence to the rule of law strengthens security by depriving terrorist organizations of their prime recruiting tools," he said. "America must remain a beacon to the world. We will lead by strength. We will lead by wisdom. And we will lead by example."

In addition, during those hearings, Holder and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., discussed future decisions over the "form to try people and how to interrogate them," as Graham put it.

Still, the "amicus brief" filed with the Supreme Court in 2004 resonates years later as Holder finds himself defending the handling of some recent terrorism cases, particularly the interrogation of alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar F. Abdulmutallab.

The brief -- filed by Holder, then a private attorney, former Attorney General Janet Reno and two other Clinton-era officials -- argued that the president lacks authority to hold Jose Padilla, a U.S citizen declared an "enemy combatant," indefinitely without charge.

In making their case, Holder and the others argued that using federal courts to fight terrorism, which includes providing Miranda rights to terror suspects, would not "impair" the government's ability to obtain intelligence, which they called "the primary tool for preventing terrorist attacks."

"Many terrorists who have been arrested and provided counsel have decided to cooperate and provide valuable information to the government," their brief said. "Over the last decade, the investigative, detention, and prosecutive authorities (of the federal court system) have been used in many cases not only to identify, arrest, and punish persons who have committed terrorist acts, but to disrupt and thwart terrorism before it can occur."

But the brief did acknowledge a possible risk in such use of the federal court system -- a risk, the brief said, that is outweighed by the advantages.

"It may be true that in some cases the government will not be able to obtain information from citizens who are informed of their right to counsel, or that obtaining that information may be delayed," the brief said, noting that a lower federal court characterized such a scenario as speculative. "But this is an inherent consequence of the limitation of executive power. No doubt many other steps could be taken that would increase our security, and could enable us to prevent terrorist attacks that might otherwise occur. But our nation has always been prepared to accept some risk as the price of guaranteeing that the executive does not have arbitrary power to imprison citizens."

That assertion does not reflect the same level of certainty that Holder has expressed recently about the ability of the federal court system to obtain intelligence and fight terrorism.

"I am confident that … the decision to address Mr. Abdulmutallab's actions through our criminal justice system has not, and will not, compromise our ability to obtain information needed to detect and prevent future attacks," Holder said in a Feb. 3 letter to lawmakers. "Neither advising Abdulmutallab of his Miranda rights nor granting him access to counsel prevents us from obtaining intelligence from him."

Holder recently said Abdulmutallab has been providing "very useful" information to counterterrorism officials after being persuaded to cooperate with authorities.

Two former Bush administration officials, who were the first to note Holder's omission, accused Holder of being disingenuous.

"Now that Holder is attorney general, he no longer acknowledges the risks to national security of treating terrorists as criminals," former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino and former Deputy White House Counsel Bill Burck said in a column posted on the National Review Web site Wednesday. "Holder could never admit that now, of course."

After President Obama nominated Holder to be attorney general, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a 47-page questionnaire, including a request for any briefs he had filed with the Supreme Court "in connection with your practice."

In response, Holder said he participated in a total of five such briefs, none of which dealt with terrorism-related issues. He did not include the Padilla brief, and he signed a statement saying the information he provided was accurate and complete "to the best of my knowledge."

Sessions, who voted to confirm the attorney general, said Holder's failure to notify lawmakers about the brief calls Holder's leadership into question.

"It is essential that we have full confidence, and receive full candor, from the official leading the Department of Justice," he said in his statement Thursday.

Miller declined to address Sessions' statement, but he suggested on Wednesday that Holder has always been open about his views on fighting terrorism.

"The attorney general has said many times publicly (that) the government has ample lawful ability to detain and interrogate terrorists and disrupt attacks without resorting to making claims of executive power that strain the Constitution," Miller said.

In fact, in Holder's response to the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, he listed a number of speeches in which he strongly condemned the Bush administration's tactics against terrorism and promised a new way forward.

"Unfortunately, in the last few years we have lost our way, with respect to our commitment to the Constitution and to the rule of law," he told a left-leaning crowd at the 2008 American Constitution Society conference in Washington, D.C., an event noted in Holder's questionnaire. "The rule of law is not, as some have seen it, an obstacle to be overcome. ... As Americans, we should bring people to justice and not hide them away from justice."

Holder's remarks from that event became the centerpiece of a recent ad from the conservative group Keep America Safe, questioning Holder's decision to hire lawyers who previously represented or advocated for detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

[Richard]

And so it goes...

Richard

[incarcerated]

In what is part of a solidifying theme of this Administration: Management by Irrationality…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...eak-terrorism/

Justice Department Accuses Republicans of Being Weak on Terrorism

By Mike Levine
- FOXNews.com
Updated March 17, 2010
Justice Department officials are firing back at Republican critics who have accused them of being soft on terror, saying they are the ones putting American lives at risk.

The comments are the first time that Justice Department officials have struck back publicly after being on the defensive for months.

In a recent hearing on Capitol Hill and in separate interviews with Fox News, high-ranking Justice Department officials said new efforts by Republicans to ban or limit the use of civilian courts for terrorism suspects would damage the U.S. government's ability to obtain intelligence and thwart potential attacks.

"Let me make this clear, let me make this very, very clear: If you were to take away (use of civilian courts) from the Justice Department, from this administration and subsequent administrations ... you would weaken our ability to fight successfully these wars," Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday before the House Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science. "It is as simple as that."

A senior Justice Department official, who asked not to be identified so that he could speak freely, was more blunt, saying "broad-based" judgments about the appropriateness of civilian courts would make the United States "less rather than more safe."

"If you're building a house, you need to use a hammer, a wrench and a screwdriver," the official said. "If you say, 'Build a house without a wrench,' you can build a house, but it won't be as stable. To remove it altogether is obviously unwise."

....Among other cases he referenced, Holder offered alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar F. Abdulmutallab as an example of a terror suspect charged in civilian court who then "cut deals" to "receive favorable treatment" in exchange for "intelligence that we wanted."

The senior Justice Department official said "no mechanisms" for such cooperation now exist in military commissions....

[Basenshukai]

Originally Posted by Richard

And so it goes...

Richard

And GEN George Washington owned slaves. Guess what, I don't agree with that either.

I couldn't care less what John Adams did, or did not do. He did not have to fight against Islamic Jihadists just as we are not fighting against British loyalists or Soldiers from the British Empire. The very system we hold so dear to our hearts is what is being used against us. The belief that any departure from that system whatsoever must lead to tyranny is the naive belief that nothing can change. If being involved with special operations has taught us anything is that we must be adaptive to the enemy in order to defeat him.

In the past, the biggest concern was the proverbial "Tyranny of the Majority" within a democracy. We are shifting to an even more dangerous trend and that is the "Tyranny of the Minority". Although polls can be manipulated (thus, I will not quote any here) it is very likely that most Americans do not believe that Osama Bin Laden, if captured, deserves the same type of trial an American citizen deserves.

During WWII German infiltrators and spies were, more often than not, shot shortly after capture and the subsequent tactical interrogation in the battlefield. A lucky and valuable few were pushed further along the system for intelligence exploitation - not for the sake of justice nor other idealistic principles and theories. Somehow, this country survived such "travesty" to liberty and became a prosperous world superpower after WINNING. Weird, right? I'd certainly like to WIN this one too.

[Richard]

Historically, such a balancing of our professed national ideals with the realities of the greater world in which we live has always been a less than tidy struggle in our open society.

Personally - I have mixed feelings on the issues yet retain a firmness of belief in the validity of our adversarial systems and their precedents (which IMO must always be explored and taken into consideration when weighing such onerous matters).

However - YMMV - and so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[Don]

Originally Posted by Basenshukai

And GEN George Washington owned slaves. Guess what, I don't agree with that either.

I couldn't care less what John Adams did, or did not do. He did not have to fight against Islamic Jihadists just as we are not fighting against British loyalists or Soldiers from the British Empire. The very system we hold so dear to our hearts is what is being used against us. The belief that any departure from that system whatsoever must lead to tyranny is the naive belief that nothing can change. If being involved with special operations has taught us anything is that we must be adaptive to the enemy in order to defeat him.

In the past, the biggest concern was the proverbial "Tyranny of the Majority" within a democracy. We are shifting to an even more dangerous trend and that is the "Tyranny of the Minority". Although polls can be manipulated (thus, I will not quote any here) it is very likely that most Americans do not believe that Osama Bin Laden, if captured, deserves the same type of trial an American citizen deserves.

During WWII German infiltrators and spies were, more often than not, shot shortly after capture and the subsequent tactical interrogation in the battlefield. A lucky and valuable few were pushed further along the system for intelligence exploitation - not for the sake of justice nor other idealistic principles and theories. Somehow, this country survived such "travesty" to liberty and became a prosperous world superpower after WINNING. Weird, right? I'd certainly like to WIN this one too.

Bas,

Those two thoughts are almost diametrically opposed. “The very system we hold so dear to our hearts is what is being used against us”; and, “The belief that any departure from that system whatsoever must lead to tyranny is the naive belief that nothing can change” What was created by the founders, is what it is…when people in our Government, or any other group, try to “progress” those thoughts, or improve upon those ideas, one way or another, it is a slippery slope.

IMHO the cartoon Richard posted shows a fundamental flaw in liberal/progressive thinking. The Declaration of Independence says ALL MEN are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights…where I think the rub is here is…There is a difference between inalienable, God-given rights, and rules of efficient administration. The problem is…the term “rights” are used interchangeably between the two. Given by God- You have the right to liberty … Given by Government- you have the right to a speedy trial. Given by God- you have the right to Life…Given by government- you have the right to universal healthcare. See the difference?

The point I am making is the foundation must be kept stable and unchanged unless we are OK with ideological tyranny from one direction or the other.

I agree, from the aspect of “administrative rights” they should only apply to folks within our geographical borders…as our Government is there to ensure the Nation is properly run, not the world. The cartoon Richard posted talks to Adams defense of British soldiers in 1770 which were involved in the Boston massacre. 1770...before the Declaration of Independance, before the Constitution (read: before establishment of our Government), for an act within the confines of the colonies, and of Soldiers that were within said boundaries. Were they tried by Americal law...or maybe the Kings law?

We did much better WINNING when our Government was less interested in imposing administrative rights on our enemies, as you have noted.

[Basenshukai]

Originally Posted by Don

Bas,

Those two thoughts are almost diametrically opposed. “The very system we hold so dear to our hearts is what is being used against us”; and, “The belief that any departure from that system whatsoever must lead to tyranny is the naive belief that nothing can change” What was created by the founders, is what it is…when people in our Government, or any other group, try to “progress” those thoughts, or improve upon those ideas, one way or another, it is a slippery slope .

No it is not. It is called an "amendment" to the Constitution. Our founding fathers did not provide for universal suffrage either. When our "founding fathers", founded this Nation, women and blacks could not vote. Do you not feel that the progress of Universal Suffrage was worth changing what our founding fathers laid down?

Why change?
The fact is that the inter-relationships between countries, cultures and governments that we experience today did not exist during the birth of this Nation. Likewise, "globalization", as we understand it, did not exist. The application of the traditional pillars of power (diplomatic/political, informational, military and economic) by a government did not harbor the second and third order effects so easily manifested today in such a short period of time.

I do believe in the establishment of the principled authority of government. However, in as much as we would like to encapsulate ourselves in static time, the reality is that our conditions will change. To be so opposed to change runs against every bit of my "special operations-educated" mind. I find that kind of thinking to be truly a conventional paradigm and it is one which a great many SOF mentors have sought to eradicate from my frame of thinking. My software, if you will, no longer operates within a conventional mindset.

Our opponents are using our justice system, the globalized mass media and the emerging informational capacity of the social media ("Twitter", "Facebook", ect.) to influence the perceptions of our very population. This is not, as the phrase goes, "our grandfather's" war. The enemy is not the same. Technology and its interconnectivity have created super-empowered individuals that are able to affect the masses across great expanses in a minimum amount of time. The enemy has been able to communicate a consistent strategic message that, over time, has us - as a Nation - guessing those very things that we have realized through empirical data; through experience.

Change is inevitable. And, having studied the intricacies of the inter-war periods of late 19th Century to the early 20th Century, I can recall that it was this same resistance to change that shaped the eventual catastrophic fate that befell countries like Germany, France and - to a great extent - even Great Britain post WWI and WWII. I'm hoping that we do not repeat that error and remain ahead of the enemy, anticipating and pre-empting before he can adapt, thereby interrupting his decision cycle. It's all about defeating the enemy. Because in the end, the calculus is easy: it's them or us.

[Don]

Bas,

Obviously I misunderstood the context of your post, and neither was I tieing much of it to the military aspect. I do not have any issue with amendments to the constitution, and that was not what I was alluding to in my post. When I read “The belief that any departure from that system whatsoever must lead to tyranny is the naive belief that nothing can change” I saw an argument for change to the system. After reading your reply, I don’t think that is what you meant.

It’s not about “change”…it’s about “changing” what. The system to me is three branches of government, a representative government, checks and balances, a vote, etc. I don’t want to change THAT. They haven’t passed an amendment yet that changed the system. Change, as you say, is inevitable.

I agree 100% that our opponents are using our system against us. The media has actually taken sides and are no longer impartial fact-finding watchdogs. They are pushing a progressive agenda, willfully omitting facts, and presenting the sheeple with a false picture. That’s where the whole SF mindset you discussed comes in. It’s called critical thinking, and is something we were given much greater latitude to exercise than conventional forces. I honestly hope more folks with conservative values wake the hell up before it is too late. Especially in the way we are executing this war.

As far as our country following the paths of England, Germany, France. It is not about lack of change that will cause our downfall…it will be enacting progressive/socialist change that will bring us into line with their means of governing, and ultimately cause the downfall.