Well, brother, I sure must have heard that wrong. Checking for further information on his development, I could only find reports that the exact opposite is the case. This CNN report posted today is the most recent update on the situation I've found so far.
Japan introduced a draft U.N. Security Council resolution on Friday that would bar missile-related financial and technology transactions with North Korea, but China and Russia, which have veto power, opposed any punitive measures.
So, as I mentioned, China and Russia are still playing flies in the oatmeal, but Japan still appears to be insisting on sanctions.
My bad for using a false "fact" to make a point about developments in the Next World Order.
Nonetheless, we're still witnessing a development in global events that conforms to the Next World Order model. A major power (China) and a balance power (Russia) are aligning against another confederation of major and balance powers (U.S. and Japan) over the contentious actions of a wild card (North Korea).
The Iran issue features a similar Next World Order set of alliances: the U.S. and the European Union squaring off over sanctions with China and Russia.
I believe we can expect to see a lot more of these kinds of alliances over single-issue foreign policy matters. And I pray that these issues will be consistently resolved through mutual benefit solutions arrived at through diplomatic measures rather than application of armed force.
Thanks very much for your correction. I was puzzled by that reference to Japan, but hadn't followed up yet.
ReplyDeleteI'm also very interested in the issue of 'white power' types being installed and trained in our military, that you (among others) cited yesterday. Reading the original source material from SPLC was even more alarming, with its quotes about the 'ethnic cleansing' they intend for US, but really, none of us should be surprised. It does seem to me that the military has an obligation to bar such TURNCOATS from military training and service, but since recruiters are now accepting pretty much anyone who can breathe and walk (the second I'm not even sure about), and even those with major autism, it is blindingly apparent that only the headcount matters.
This Iraq conflict and its stop-loss program will undoubtedly produce many shoreside consequences resulting from mentally unbalanced veterans, but to think that we are deliberately and knowingly providing the tools of warfare to those already mentally unbalanced, whose INTENT is to use them against us - this is appalling.
Further, I do not understand why any unit commander would not purge his/her ranks of these sociopaths, for the good of their unit. How can anyone falling outside the 'white power' paradigm of 'the chosen' possibly rely on them for assistance at crunch time? Their presence is counter-productive (at best) during their time IN the military, and they'll be loose cannons when they are out of the military: WHY are we doing this? (This is obviously a rhetorical question, but in a rational world, ought to be a non-existent question.)
Clarification: When I said "they" (in "Reading the original source material from SPLC was even more alarming, with its quotes about the 'ethnic cleansing' they intend for US..." ), I was not referring to SPLC, but to their quote from the National Alliance's Resistance magazine article:
ReplyDelete"Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war, and the ethnic cleansing to follow, will be very much an infantryman's war. It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood, until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.' "
My bad.
Kathleen,
ReplyDeleteI just visited a lengthy comment string at Kos on the subject of the recruiting issue. I'm hesitant to go so far as many others who imply that the military is either seeking these people out or is purposely turning a blind eye to their activities. The issue is just too darn complex for me to draw any conclusions as to culpability on the military's part.
As to the notion that these groups are actively infiltrating the military, yeah, I buy that given the evidence I've seen so far.
You've hit on one of the critical points in this issue, Mus, and one that's very difficult to sort through.
ReplyDeleteTo what extent can past or present membership in a group be used to bar one from serving in the mlitary? And by what measure can you determine if anyone "truly believes" in military rules on hatred and racism. All you can do is enforce the rules that exist.
That we're seeing racist grafitti in Iraq indicates there is a problem. That's against the rules, but who broke them? How many investigations can a commander conduct while his unit is in the middle of a combat operation?
Conducting investigations during peacetime operations is an admnistrative nightmare. In combat, oh, brother.
So it's a problem, as are many other things in this war. But I'm very hesitant to start pointing fingers at any level of command.
Except, maybe, the very highest level.
From DOD Directive 1325.6:
ReplyDelete"3.5.8. Prohibited Activities. Military personnel must reject participation in organizations that espouse supremacist causes; attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, or national origin; advocate the use of force or violence; or otherwise engage in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights. Active participation, such as publicly demonstrating or rallying, fund raising, recruiting and training members, organizing or leading such organizations, or otherwise engaging in activities in relation to such organizations or in furtherance of the objectives of such organizations that are viewed by command to be detrimental to the good order, discipline, or mission accomplishment of the unit, is incompatible with Military Service, and is, therefore, prohibited."
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf2/d13256p.pdf
Thanks, navywife, for that link.
ReplyDeleteI would also guess that there is something in the recruits' sign-up documents about swearing to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic, and to uphold the Constitution, etc. (Is there a way to find that document online?) Make no mistake: these neo-Nazis are our 'domestic enemies' - they are sworn terrorists whose intent is to remake this country into a hell of their choosing, and in the process, they plan to violate the Constitution (and numerous other statutes) left and right.
As a public employee, I had to sign a statement swearing an oath of allegiance as a condition of employment, and I imagine the papers given to military recruits for signing have such a clause, at minimum. And I do think that plotting to exterminate one's neighbors as an exercise in "ethnic cleansing" would certainly violate any such signing, and no, having signed "under duress" cannot be used as a defense for violating such a statement. The signatory is free to sign or not sign, as they choose.
It is also incumbent upon other military recruits to report having been approached by such neo-Nazis who attempt to gather them into the fold. Command staff should make it clear that this is a forbidden activity, and that it must be reported. No, not every neo-Nazi in the military can be discovered, but the military should try to expose and reject them, and should make it clear that they will exhibit a zero tolerance response.
musmanno, I think the activities of the 'white power' gangs exceed the definition of 'belief' and cross over into 'action' (even when that 'action' is still at the planning and conspiracy stages), and any such action is not Constitutionally protected. Further, as we've all discussed earlier (in the context of the Generals who have been speaking out against Rumsfeld etc.), military recruits do not share in the Constitutional protections the rest of us take for granted.
Perhaps I was not clear. I am talking about neo-Nazi military recruits and the various remedies that could (and I think should) be taken to prevent their activities and even their presence within the military:
ReplyDelete(1) Those in the military already do not enjoy the same Constitutional protections that the rest of us do. They fall under Uniform Code of Military Justice.
(2) The Pentagon has an explicit policy forbidding "participation in organizations that espouse supremacist causes..."
(3) The recruits have probably signed and/or sworn oaths that would preclude their participation or advocacy of such beliefs and activities, unless they choose to violate those oaths.
The policies are in place. Military brass can choose to enforce them, or not.
musmanno, here is an amateur's question, regarding First Amendment protections:
ReplyDeleteFor a regular citizen (non-military), do I understand you correctly to be saying that it is protected speech for me to try to recruit someone to help me kill my neighbor (for whatever reason)?
Is it also legal for me to offer to pay someone to do it for me?
At what point does it become illegal - does the actual murder attempt have to transpire before the "conspiracy" charge can kick in?
It was my understanding that an attempt to hire a hit man was illegal; am I incorrect in this? Is it only when money changes hands that it's a problem, or what?
Wonderful discussion, everyone. Thanks for contributing.
ReplyDeleteI'm casting about for articles and papers that describe what the UCMJ does and doesn't do regarding constitutional rights of military members.
If anyone runs across something, I'll appreciate getting a URL.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteFor the narrow issue of extremists in the military, you might start with this:
http://www.splcenter.org/legal/news/article.jsp?aid=10
I'm still looking for more.
PS: I appreciate this quiet corner of yours for such discussions, and your always thought-provoking and illuminating posts, and contributors.
L. J.,
ReplyDeleteAs Lurch says, I am but a retired Airdale and ignorant in the ways of Army tattoo regs. ;-)
My take on the hate group issue is that it's an institutional problem caused by the Iraq situation, and one for which there's no easy solution.
I'm very familiar, however, with the effect of the lowering of ASVAB score requirements. Every time we did that in the Navy, discipline problems of all kinds soared.
The Army's in a tough spot. I really hate to see it happening.
A problem with having an all volunteer force is that you have to preserve it. You can't afford long war style attrition and loss of material like you could in WWII.
But that's the gist of another article.
Thanks for stopping by and posting.
Jeff
I'm suprised anyone with as many years in the service as Mr. Huber wouldn't know the DA and FM numbers almost verbatum. Of course tis the difference between enlisted and an officer. ;)
ReplyDeleteUhhh, what Lurch said. Jeff being a former, retired Navy Airedale (aviation/gold-wing type) would hardly be familiar with DA and FM numbers, unless he had had Joint Command operational experience. Now, if you were to talk to him about The BuPersMan or 3710 or MIMs or something else near and dear to the hearts of all us poor, beknighted former Naval Officers, I'm sure he'd be able show you why the other name for General NATOPS was the "big blue sleeping pill".
:)
Josh Marshall has a bit on China-N.Korea-U.S. relations here, fyi:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009024.php