We have begun debating the wisdom of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a number of his co-conspirators in a federal, civilian court in Manhattan. Despite all the legal arguments that are being bandied about and the stated departure from the historical precedent of using military tribunals, what about examining this from a different perspective? What if the decision to pursue a civilian judgment was a purposeful attempt to create confusion? What would be gained from that confusion and who would gain it?

Eric Holder is no dummy. He understands the legal system and, as U.S. Attorney General, he has access (presumably) to the best legal minds in our country. What I find curious is that I have not heard many legal arguments in favor of such a civilian trial. It’s almost as if the legal benefits were not part of the consideration. Instead, what if we look at the consequences of such a trial, those “unintended” consequences?

What happens to the commander in the field of battle? Is that commander now forced to consider reading an enemy combatant a Miranda-rights statement? Isn’t that a requirement of our legal justice system, such that it’s absence renders all verbal evidence gained from the “accused” to be inadmissible in a court of law? What happens when an interpreter must be found to insure that the enemy combatant understands those Miranda rights? What happens when the enemy combatant realizes that silence is an option? What happens if the commander in the field uses coercive techniques anyway, knowing that those under his command may be in imminent danger without valuable intelligence that the enemy combatant may have? Will that commander be prosecuted for doing so?

I do not believe for a second that those questions were NOT given consideration as Eric Holder debated whether or not to proceed with civilian trials. I think they were considered a plus. How else would you completely hamstring our military and neuter its effectiveness? After all, isn’t a strong military expected to uphold and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? Sounds to me like the military’s capabilities are anathema to the Obama administration’s agenda.

No, I believe that those “unintended” consequences are INTENDED consequences. This administration has shown its disdain for the military in more ways than one. This is just another example of Obama’s treachery in trying to subvert everything that this nation stands for. It is a way to further weaken something that may stand in his way to creating his version of a socialist utopia with him as its leader.

Cross-posted at Generational Dysfunction.

In my wildest imagination, I see a change in momentum. I suddenly witness the act of certain, principled people supporting conservatism. Look particularly at the special Congressional race in NY-23, where an independent candidate has labeled himself “conservative” and garnered the support of Sarah Palin, Dick Armey and Rick Santorum, true conservatives all. Moreover, Hoffman has he support of the Tea Party movement. He is approaching the finish line of a November 3rd election and he has suddenly been infused with major campaign cash. What to do?

I’d like to see him hammer his Republican and Democratic opposition to the maximum degree! Stand on conservative principles and watch the electorate line up to support you. Although the mainstream media would have you think that this is a minor election, it is HUGE! If Doug Hoffman can pull off the unthinkable and win this election, what does it say in the aftermath?

It says that the organized efforts to demonize Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Rick Santorum and the Tea Party movement have been lost on the electorate. Given a conservative candidate in their midst, the voters in the 23rd district of New York will stand with a candidate that supports their conservative values!

This will give immediate credibility to those people that supported Hoffman. Demonize them as they will, the mainstream media will not be able to ignore the fact that Palin, Armey, Santorum and Tea Party protesters were on the winning side. Ah, but this is just my wildest imagination, right?

We now stand on the cusp of certain events never before entertained during the existence of our country. We stand in stunned amazement at the notion that our government has nationalized the automobile and banking industries to the extent that they are dictating salary levels. This country (our country) is poised to take a dramatic tack to the left that cannot be undone. We stand on the verge of installing a socialist government that mandates heath care options and will render our way of life and its history a faint memory. Unless these efforts are halted, the US Constitution will be a remnant of the distant past, a footnote remark as a failed document and ideology. Unless….

What happens if an upstart, conservative candidate in the 23rd district of New York wins his election and is installed as a member of the U.S. Congress?

What happens when FoxNews calls the election for that conservative candidate in advance of all the other, so-called “legitimate news organizations”?

How will the Obama administration spin the event? “It’s not something we’re losing sleep over”.

Pray tell, what comes next?

Cross-posted at Generational Dysfunction

Every politician desires to have the ability to influence other people. For the most part, that desire helps define what a politician does. The politician’s ability to influence others allows them to hold sway with the political machinery that affords them the opportunity to run for elective office. Once elected, that same desire manifests itself in the ability to get other politicians to follow you as you drive legislative initiatives into law, a payback to those whose “chits” you redeemed or still hold.

Politicians build an inventory of “chits” that they can use at critical times during a run for office. Political machinery is steeped in the tradition of trading “chits”. It has helped build the foundational culture behind both major political parties. This culture helped create a structure that enabled our two major political parties to build national organizations. Unfortunately, this political structure does not always operate in a manner that has the best interests of the electorate in mind.

Now, consider the concept of groupthink. Groupthink gained prominence in light of the Kennedy administration’s disastrous policy toward Cuba, culminating the the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Wikipedia defines it as follows:

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.

Now that you have a basic understanding of groupthink, let’s re-examine the structure of national political parties. They are, in essence, a fraternity of politicians schooled in the principles of the structure. This structure supports the apparatus used to achieve political goals. It does not necessarily exist along ideological lines since those ideologies can change over time. It must, however,  adapt to these changing ideologies and continue to work toward the party’s electoral victories.

I believe that the Republican Party is wallowing in structural groupthink. The political machinery is driven by the age-old process of trading “chits” and no longer knows how to adapt to the ideology of its party members, much less the electorate. How else do you explain the disdain shown toward such up-and-coming politicians like Sarah Palin? Sarah Palin has done nothing to warrant such treatment by her own political party. What she has done is challenge the status quo of the party machinery by her appeal to the party base.

The Republican Party does not know what to do with a candidate that has such an appeal at the grassroots level. It didn’t know what to do with the appeal of Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan’s strength was his ability to speak directly to the party base and, ultimately, build a broad majority among the electorate in general. The Republican Party did very little to elect Ronald Reagan. It was forced to finally get out of his way as he built up an organization that “trumped” the party bosses.

Nothing has changed in the Republican Party since the days preceding Reagan. The party is again being driven by the party bosses and their respective fiefdoms, all rolled together to form the Republican party leadership. The process of trading “chits” has re-established itself to the same result, one that maintains the structure at the expense of its members.

Sarah Palin must travel the same road as Reagan and she has precious little time to build an organization. She must counter the groupthink that lives in the Republican Party. She already has an ideology that appeals to the party base, as did Reagan, and I believe that we have not heard the end of her self-proclaimed “common-sense conservatism”. If only the Republican Party could recognize its groupthink and see its salvation in a common-sense candidate from Alaska.