I get the impression that General Dempsey is ticked off because retired military personnel no longer have to obey his orders: Please view the two videos to put Dempsey in perspective. The videos are primarily about Senator Sessions trying to get to the bottom of Leon Panetta implementing the administrations position on defending this country. However, notice in the first video that Dempsey is Panettas guy: In the second video John Bolton clarifies what Panetta said. Ambassador Bolton does not cite General Dempsey, but, once again, I urge you to remember that Dempsey is Panettas guy: Dempsey is critical of former military personnel complaining about leaked intelligence secrets. My first problem: General Dempsey should retire so he, too, can say anything he wants to say. As a retired officer he can preach surrendering Americas sovereignty to the United Nations to his hearts content. In fact, James R. Stewart uses less polite terms than I use to suggest that Dempsey retire: August 26, 2012 The General and Political Speech By James R. Stewart http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/the_general_and_political_speech.html Heres my take on the issues involved: Civilians leaking intelligence secrets and methods is definitely traitorousness, while every active military officer who places the United Nations above the United States in anything is guilty of punishable treason. Surely, the damage done by Dempsey in that one appearance before Senator Sessions dwarfs the harm done by all of the intelligence leaks coming out of the White House. I say that because leaks will stop when Hussein & Company are gone, while getting permission from the United Nations to defend this country will live in Democrat circles far into the future. Just so no one thinks I am downplaying the importance of exposing leaked intelligence data, let me point out that its a major catastrophe with profound consequences when leaking intelligence secrets is less damaging to the country than the things A FEW of our military leaders advocate while still in uniform. Ill close with a video about leaking intelligence secrets that Im sure General Dempsey, et al. find objectionable:
Flanders, et al, This is nothing but political bantering. (COMMENT) Secretary Panetta and CSA GEN Dempsey, were talking about the need to establish a "Legal Basis" for a "coalition force;" and NOT a US Only Force. A coalition force can not be assembled if there is no international legal basis for such a force to act. Everyone knows that the US has and will continue to be (under current policy) a self appointed "World Police." It doesn't need international legal basis to act independently. But, in acting independently, there may be unintended consequences. Both SEN Sessions and Ambassador Bolton were being very argumentative and pig headed, trying to imply that --- in the SECDEF wanting to seek International Consensus, that it was somehow wrong. Ambassador Bolton is a very arrogant person; extremely hard to work with, especially when you are trying to gain international support. He believes that the US is a special case and that the US is so strong, that it is above international law. Which is the Paradox. How do we, the US, exempt our nation from the Rule of Law that we teach? No one suggested that the US has to secure international approval to defend itself. Under current international law, every nation has the right to defend its sovereignty; even against US independent action. Under US Law, War is declared by Congress. Yet that is largely misunderstood. Congress hasn't declared War in over half a century. But the US has been to war many times. Congress has largely abdicated it role and responsibility in War by implementing the AUMF. In terms of the White House leaks, it is nothing. The media has had "unnamed, highly placed, Administration sources" since the days of the Korean War and Walter Cronkite. And when it comes to SECRET information, the President is the ultimate classification authority. He can classify or declassify material at his discretion. He decides if the release of the information will cause, damage, serious damage, or exceptionally grave damage. The President determines the acceptable risk and balances it against the publics need-to-know. Most Respectfully, R
To RoccoR: Go back to the first video link and listen to Senator Sessions concerns instead of making excuses for Dempsey and Panetta. To RoccoR: It is wrong. If it was right UN-loving traitors would not have to double-talk their way around it with International law crap. To RoccoR: How do you know John Bolton is hard to work with? Did you get that opinion from then-Senators Biden and Dodd when they blocked his confirmation for US Ambassador to the UN? And just to set the record there is no such thing as International law. John Bolton knows that and that is the real reason his confirmation was blocked. I said this in a message on another board in 2008:
Flanders, et al, The purpose of SEN Session's line of questioning was to exert the appearance of Congressional Control over the process; and not to contribute anything towards a refinement of the process. Like so many politicians, SEN Sessions was making noise to hear himself and put on the entertainment. He did not accomplish anything except to emphasis that he believes that the US can go where it wants, do what it wants and invade who it wants, over and above the framework of internationally recognized law. That is US Policy, and that is the policy that most anti-American opponents point to as the cause for hating the US. (COMMENT) I did, and what I saw was the Senator, as dim witted as he is, unable to understand the difference between coalition building and independent US military deployment; absent international approval. (COMMENT) Independent US military deployments are not always the right approach to take. The US is not all powerful. And coalitions which provide additional support, to military adventures are often essential. And as the SECDEF said, you are not going to be able to recruit other nations to your cause if you don't have some legal basis for military action. (COMMENT) Ambassador Bolton is an arrogant, aristocratic snob, who is a PNAC hardliner for the American Military Hegemony and World Police platform. While I did not work for him, I have listened to those that have and the heartaches invokes. He is a bully, and projects that attitude in the policies he supports. The use of force is his principle option. Bolton thinks he is some kind of Royal Prince, with no humility of his own. He has no real leadership skills, but uses the shear force of his authority to any progress. He is not a consumate diplomat, but a fire starter. (COMMENT) Well this argument fails on two levels. First: Whether you look-up the Geneva Convention, the UN Charter, the Rome Statues, etc, they exist. And the failure to recognize the International Law is just as silly as those foolish anarchists that refuse to pay taxes and recognize the authority of law enforcement or the state as a lawful government. Just because you don't recognize it, doesn't mean its not there. Second: While under US Law, an action may be legal, the fact that the US puts itself above the law, actually means that it doen't believe in the Rule of Law. Most Respectfully, R
To RoccoR: First let me say this is my final attempt to enlighten you. My reply is in two parts. Do you realize you just said the American people do not control their own destiny? To RoccoR: And rightly so when it is a matter of self-defense. Your position would be less naive if every country in the world was like America. Unfortunately, the minute an aggressive nation thinks they can defeat the US militarily they will attack for territorial conquest under the guise of one “humanitarian” ideology or another. James Madison understood the principle in a world that was far less dangerous than it is today: Ultimately, America’s great strength is also its greatest weakness. Every hostile nation in the world relies on America’s aversion to territorial gain by military force. And please don’t respond with global government crap unless you can prove an end to mass murders done by governments as well as an end to cross-border wars. To RoccoR: Internationally recognized law? That’s a good one! Most Americans do not recognize it. And they certainly won’t enforce it when it harms their country. Let those who do recognize a harmful fantasy enforce it without the help of UN-loving American traitors. To RoccoR: Opponents? You sound like it is a sporting contest. America’s ENEMIES will always come up with something designed to make Americans feel guilty enough to surrender their sovereignty to a pack International community parasites. Frankly, no American should seek the approval of parasites. In fact, our government should help totalitarian governments grind their own people deeper into collectivism at every opportunity until they learn to fight for freedom from government instead of begging for tighter chains. Let them wallow in their touchy-feely garbage so long as they understand they will be wiped out the minute they look in America’s direction with envious eyes. To RoccoR: Panetta and Dempsey were dimwits thinking Senator Sessions would rollover for the con-job they were laying down. To RoccoR: Give it a rest. You are repeating the nonsense Biden and Dodd spouted during Bolton’s confirmation hearing. Did you know that columnist Robert Novak (1931 - 2009 ) on Capital Gang nailed Dodd? Castro came to power by violent revolution. Once he was in power he began to export violent revolution. To be fair he loved peace so long as it was a UN peace. That’s the guy Senator Dodd, Senator Biden, and the other leading Democrats avenged by not confirming Bolton. And you have the ax out for Senator Sessions! Thank heavens Dodd and Biden are gone from the Senate. Biden will soon be gone from government altogether. And invoking heartaches! Please spare me the tears. The only heartaches Bolton evoked were suffered by liberal employees in the State Department who got sick at the thought of somebody actually standing up for this country.
To RoccoR: I don’t have to research them. Here’s some of the comments I’ve posted over the years: Regarding torture: Back in 2008 debate John McCain asked Mitt Romney: I don’t have Romney’s reply but had he said “You got that right.” he would have been the Republican candidate in 2008. Romney would have clinched the general election had he added “Civilized behavior does not flow from the Geneva Conventions nor does peace.” Romney might also have added that wars and TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS have become increasingly brutal from the outset of the Geneva Conventions in 1864. There is no evidence to support the claim that says the Geneva Conventions made the world a better place. There is much evidence to support the opposite view. Prior to 1864, governments not at war concentrated on killing ambitious citizens they saw as threatening. Since 1864, the GCs gained worldwide attention and respectability. During that time governments added killing everyone those in power do not like. The Ottoman Empire, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China, along with countless less-known brutal regimes have slaughtered well over 100 million of their own citizens. Brutality strengthened by new technology will always outpace good intentions. In the hands of the politically powerful, technology developed in the last century alone made it the most murderously efficient century in history. Mankind cannot possibly be worse off after scrapping the Geneva Conventions. So long as the GCs remain a political force nothing else will be tried. Scrap the Geneva Conventions and see what develops. Reinstitute the GCs if things are worse at the end of this century. Here is some background about the Geneva Conventions taken from my computer almanac. There are two separate entries. The first is about the Red Cross when the Geneva Conventions were in the rudimentary stage. Note that in the beginning there was no mention of torture: Before moving on, let me suggest that caring for the wounded in accordance with the Geneva Conventions evolved into “wounding” enemy combatants. Professional soldiers in every modern army know that a wounded enemy soldier ties up more resources and manpower than does a dead enemy. I am not saying the wounded should be treated as they were treated in long-forgotten wars. I am simply pointing out one result of the Geneva Conventions. Call it one more example of “The highway to hell is paved with good intentions.” Here’s a brief history of the Geneva Conventions: Somewhere along the way the United Nations set itself up as the authority on the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions tell Americans how to behave while enemies ignore the “law” with impunity. Countries that have signed onto the Geneva Conventions often engage in the most brutal forms of torture. Not every country is a signatory —— those that did not sign have no “legal” obligation to comply. Proponents of the Geneva Conventions seem to be saying that America should avoid war against the non-signers. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all wars were fought by gentlemen? There’s also a touch of the charity hustle in the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross (not to be confused with the American Red Cross) was founded in 1863 prior to the first Geneva Convention in 1864. In nearly 150 years the ICRC has grown into a well-funded organization dedicated to self-aggrandizement. Committee membership is restricted to Swiss citizens. Aside from making cheese with holes in it those Swiss know a good thing when they see it. The day the GCs will be universally enforced is a pipe dream. Lacking enforcement the Geneva Conventions is nothing more than a fairy tale told by the touchy-feely crowd. America should not be bound by non-existent International law. Americans dictate their own conduct in war. So long as Americans provide humane treatment to captured enemy combatants, I see no point in giving the Geneva Conventions legitimacy. Notice how the original mandate grew: The First Convention covered care for wounded and sick members of the armed forces in the field. The Second Convention covered care for the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea as well as shipwreck victims. The Third Convention covered prisoners of the war. The Fourth Convention covered civilians in times of war. When the inevitable Fifth Convention convenes guess what will be added? You guessed right if you said habeas corpus and enemy combatants being tried in civilian courts. It will all be made to appear that GI Joe is being protected, but the new additions will include protections for the people who gave the orders as well as the people who carried them out. There will be no more War Crimes Trials where Nazi and Japanese leaders were executed by military tribunals. There will be no more hanging dictators à la Saddam. Parenthetically, the Rule of Law, rather than the GCs, should provide legal safeguards for traitors of every stripe. First give them a trial then hang them. The New World Order crowd repeatedly invoking the Geneva Conventions at every opportunity is a scam designed to send “violators” to an International court of some kind. Indeed, the first Geneva Convention is the foundation for the false belief in International law. Regardless of all of the references to International law one hears and reads there is no such thing. That’s how it should remain. Americans treat prisoners of war in a civilized manner. Americans can, and do, punish military personnel for illegal acts. That gives many in the world the impression that humane treatment at the hands of Americans only exists because of the Geneva Conventions. NOTE: Those who were punished for horseplay at Abu Ghraib got the shaft. The punishment did not fit the offense. Don’t confuse military personnel with intelligence community personnel and the techniques they use to get information. Even in that area, it makes no sense to distrust their judgement and replace it with the judgement of global government members of Congress and MSM liberals. To RoccoR: Temporary I assure you. To RoccoR: International law does not exist. Your International law is an assumption of authority by an organization. In short: International law is Socialist law is UN law. No country or individual need comply. To RoccoR:
