Saturday, July 08, 2006

My Bad in Yesterday's Column

Yesterday's commentary Another Week Under Our Belts contained "I just heard on CNN that Japan has dropped its demands for sanctions on North Korea."

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.


  1. Thanks very much for your correction. I was puzzled by that reference to Japan, but hadn't followed up yet.

    I'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.)

  2. 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:

    "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.

  3. Kathleen,

    I 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.

  4. Can someone be barred from military service just because of a belief? Normally, the answer would be 'no' under the 1st amendment, but I'm not sure how this is applied in the military. Jeff?

  5. You've hit on one of the critical points in this issue, Mus, and one that's very difficult to sort through.

    To 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.

  6. It's hard to speak about generalities, and equally hard, or harder, to ascribe reasons to anonymous recruiters, who most often are career personnel and are charged with a very difficult task: finding cannon fodder during a time of great military stress, with no clear resolution visible because there is, after all, no clear plan other than keeping as many troops in Iraq as possible while waiting for the chance to conquer another country.

    The recent infusion of white power types, neo-Nazis, and gang-bangers (yes, there are non-whites learning the house to house trade) really came about because the Pentagon relaxed some very strict recruiting parameters that prohibited tattoos.

    Special note to Musmanno: I know you feel it's illogical to ascribe all the killing and chaos to Mr Bush, but if he hadn't had a woodie to prove to his mother that he was more of a he-man and "War Leader" than his father, we wouldn't be discussing the neo-nazi influx in the Army today.

  7. navywife6:14 PM

    From DOD Directive 1325.6:

    "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."

  8. Thanks, navywife, for that link.

    I 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.

  9. Kathleen:

    White supremacists beliefs and expression of that belief is certainly protected, which is why the ACLU went to court and successfully defended the right of the KKK to march in city streets.

    Even with conspiracy you need an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, not just beliefs, intentions, or plans.

    That's part of the protection our Constitution affords people.

  10. 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:

    (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.

  11. Yeah, I know what you meant, Kathleen. I was addressing your later comment where you said that beliefs that crossed over into actions or plans were not constitutionally protected. That's not necessarily true. You then said, after this statement, that military people had lesser Constitutional protections, which means your original statement about plans or actions didn't apply only to military people, but to Constitutional protections generally, and that's what I was responding to. I don't disagree with the rest.

  12. musmanno, here is an amateur's question, regarding First Amendment protections:

    For 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?

  13. Wonderful discussion, everyone. Thanks for contributing.

    I'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.

  14. Jeff,

    For the narrow issue of extremists in the military, you might start with this:

    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.

  15. Kathleen:

    It may vary some from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If you have your neighbor over and you talk about how great it is goingto be to kills a bunch of jews (to use an example), then you haven't committed a crime. If you draw up plans for precisely how you're going to carry this out, then you probably still haven't committed any crime. You have to take an affirmative step in furtherance of the conspiracy as well (at least in most jurisdictions, perhaps all of them).

    I don't think money has to change hands for you to be guilty of soliciting a crime.

    To get back to the first amendment context, the general idea is that thoughts and beliefs are protected. If you think Jews, or blacks, or whites, or muslims should be eliminated from the planet, you're free to think it. You're free to say it. You're free to hold rallys to express that opinion to others.

    If you start trying to hire people to carry out your ideas, then you're crossing over. So the ACLU rightly defended the KKKs right to march down a street, but if that same KKK wanted to burn a cross in someone's yard, calling it speech wouldn't be a defense against that crime.

  16. Jeff:

    Here is a site run by some lawyers that apparently deal with the issue of Constitutional rights in the military. I haven't had a chance to look at the content yet:

  17. Well, I'm not sure if it will help you much. I believe you can access it. Try:

    also go check out

    more specifically DA PAM 600-15.

    This goes in extreme detail into the regulations on Extremist Activities in the Army and what a commander can do with an extremist.

    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. ;)

    Wish I could research more for you but I'm quite busy here in the sandbox. Good site btw. I really enjoy reading it.

  18. AR 635-200 covers the seperation actions in the Army. You can be separated for numerous things.

    Question to Lurch. How does the new tattoo policy weaken the Army's defense against extremism? I would hope you are not suggesting that only people belonging to hate groups and extremists are the only ones who get tattoos on the hands and the back of the neck. One of my friends here has numerous tattoos and is very familiar with the Army's "list" of extremist tattoos. He isn't around at the moment but I will see if he remembers the PAM number.

    Back to the grind.

    General comment. My friends and I like to say "We gave up our rights, to defend the rights of others." It has alot of truth in the Army.

  19. Thanks for the commentary, lj. It's nice hearing from anyone over there in fantasyland, and to get word from someone who has view of life perhaps slightly different from ours is also a pleasure.

    I'm not paid to stand up for Jeff Huber, but I'm sure you understand it's a stretch for a retired airedale to know much about DA policy and regulations. Speaking as an ex-Army NCO, he's a good man, for an officer. (humor inserted intentionally.)

    As I understand the new tattoo policy there are styles, types and locations that are prohibited. I haven't really investigated it much, in honesty, because in my generation the common tattoo was a pair of paratrooper wings on your forearm. My understanding has been gained from general news articles, and I hope you know how unreliable those are. But I do remember reading that DA relaxed location and style standards within the last 120 days.

    I will look into the pubs you've offered; many thanks. Yes, we give up some constitutional rights when we willingly submit to UCMJ. But isn't it fair to say that in many ways UCMJ can protect your rights as well as the ACLU? I admit YMMV depending on Command Intent, but all the SJA and JAG officers I ran across back in the day were very conscious of fairness and justice.

  20. L. J.,

    As 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.


  21. That was me just messing. I personally hate memorizing the numbers of AR's and such.

    I was able to talk to my buddy about tattoos. The Army has changed it's regulation on the allowed location of tattoos. They can now be on the hands and on the back of the neck. To my understanding this was done because many of the population have tattoos in this day and age.

    As far as the tattoos signifying extremism, gangs, etc. the same guidelines are in place. Though there isn't an actual "book" with a listing of pictures or description as to what is considered representative of those groups. From what I can find in those regs. that do exist if a tattoo is found to be in violation of Army policy then the Army will go through the steps of seeking the removal of said tattoo. Of course once the tattoo is discovered they will also go through the steps of dealing with extremist views that run counter to the cohesion of the Army values.

    Overall though the Army (and the other services) have the Regulations and Practices in place to create a fair and equal work environment. However, it is left up to individuals, ie commanders, to enforce the policies. This is where, in my opinion, the whole thing falls apart. It is the failure of individuals that are at the root of the issues that we see in the military. With the present day issues being the rooted in the failure of the command and NCO's to be aware and acknowledge the motivations, morale, and mental condition of their troops. This coupled with the lowering of military recruiting standards hasn't helped the issue. Further if you look at the present Stop-Loss policy the Army has enacted (myself as well as most of my platoon are stop-lossed) you are not going to have the normal level of morale, which is low in a combat zone to begin with.

    The infiltartion of groups, who hold a counter-cultural view, into the military is nothing new in my opinion. If I was a member of one of those groups I could think of no better way to get training. However, it is the job of the recruiter, officers, NCO's and fellow soldiers to be aware of and remove these influences where-ever they are.

  22. 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. ;)

    Uhhh, 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".


  23. Josh Marshall has a bit on China-N.Korea-U.S. relations here, fyi: