Andy McCarthy, a former U.S. Attorney who knows a thing or two about this topic (he successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheik in the aftermath of the WTC bombings) responded to Holder's performance in front of the Committee today:
"What made the United States most vulnerable in the Nineties was our enemies' perception that they were at war and we were not. They gave us bombs and death, we gave them rights. That encouraged them to attack us more often and more audaciously — which is exactly what they did. If we are at war, and the Attorney General said this morning that we are, we have to treat it like a war. Pressed by Sen. Graham, the AG could not name a single time when, during war, we captured an enemy combatant outside the U.S. and brought him into the United States for a civilian trial — vesting him with all the rights of an American citizen. That's because that hasn't happened. That's not how you treat wartime enemies.
Further, if we are going to have military commissions at all (and Holder says we will continue to have them), it makes no sense to transfer the worst war criminals to the civilian system. Doing so tells the enemy that they will get more rights if they mass-murder civilians."
This decision is wrong on so many levels, and I would invite anyone who reads this who thinks this is a smart move to try and do a better job defending it than the AG himself did today.
26 comments:
As someone who knows nothing about law, I have to say that Eric Holder, in this video clip, did absolutely get owned. If this were like WWF wrestling, Graham just chokeslammed Holder off a ladder onto a table. However with that said, I don't know what reasons Holder gave for trying him in federal court. This post and movie were so one-sided, I don't know what the other side presented. Therefore, I cannot make an informed comment on this post, because I do not have both sides.
The movie was a little one-sided, I'll give you that. However, when given the time to answer, Holder didnt exactly impress either. He seemed totally unsure of himself.
But here is the reason Holder chose a civilian court for KSM's trial: it is a political decision to appease the liberal base. Believe it or not, KSM will become the victim in this civilian trial, not the near 3,000 who dies that day. The Bush administration and the interrogation techniques used by the CIA will be put on trial. That is why KSM is in civilian court and what the liberal goal was all along.
This is such a complicated matter with so many gray areas and blurred lines. It'd be easier if we were fighting a legal, defensive war instead of an illegal, offensive police effort. Terms such as "terrorist" and "battlefield" are ill-defined and ambiguous. Holder's stuttering, dumbfounded responses would be all I could come up with in answer to this gentleman's loaded, irrelevant questions.
I think the main problem with this issue is that folks are looking at the Constitution as a document that grants rights to people, instead of a charter that puts limits on the federal government. It doesn't say what we get, it says what they can't do. The Fifth Amendment begins with "no person", not "no American citizen". It says what the federal government can't do to people, any people.
I actually don't give a crap where these people are tried. The Constitution is left fairly open-ended regarding the creation of courts, etc. I haven't researched the matter enough to determine what kind of legal precedents have been set, but what I do know is what the government *can't* do. Any precedent that breaks from the Bill of Rights is simply breaking the original precedent.
I think the uniqueness of the situation would be well served by some sort of hybrid court/tribunal, something Devin indicated in a comment, an intriguing idea.
Nic, the Constitution does both. It set limits on what the government can do, but it also grants individuals rights (the Bill of Rights).
The crux of this whole issue turns on whether or not we are at war. If we are, then the laws of war apply. If we aren't and this is merely a law enforcement issue, then all the rights granted to criminal defendants in a federal court apply. These rights include off the top of my head: the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of your peers (as if a jury pool in NYC will be impartial towards KSM???), right to counsel, right to remain secure in your person, protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to remain silent (Miranda rights/warnings cops are supposed to tell you before taking you into custody), the right to confront the witnesses against you, the right to have access (discovery) to all the information that the prosecution intends to use against you and the methods by which that info was obtained, and the right to have the prosecution establish, step by step, the chain of custody of every piece of evidence to be used against the defendant. These rights are granted by the Bill of Rights and the Federal Rules of Evidence.
When America is at war, which Obama and Holder have both acknowledged, our enemies, including prisoners of war, are not, nor have ever been (including during the Revolutionary War-before the Constitution was even drafted) entitled to these rights, as these procedures would surely undermine America's effort to effectively wage war and defeat its enemies. This is why most are confused and upset as to why we're now trying these people in federal court, which necessarily entails giving them all of the rights that come along with it.
About the hybrid system, I need more time to read this book, but the idea is intriguing. His premise is that because our intelligence forces have to work so closely with law enforcement agencies across the globe to wage this "war" on terrorism, er, the overseas contingency operation, a hybrid tribunal/court system makes better sense. One thing I really like about this idea is that because national security law is such a niche area, it makes little sense to have your typical federal judge, a jack of all trades, master of none, trying these cases, which is what will happen in NYC. Wouldn't it be preferable to have true experts in national security law judging these cases? We have specialized immigration judges, administrative law judges, specialized bankruptcy and tax judges, and so forth.
Sorry for the long-winded comment.
Are we at war technically? did congress ever actually declare war?
@Devin - my point was that we're *not* looking at it as a leash on the government. (Not that it matters to the current issue, but the Constitution doesn't "grant" rights, as those rights preceded the Constitution.) And you're very good at pointing out the way things are, but not the way they *should* be. I look forward to your support for the statement that affording basic human rights to detainees would "surely undermine" the war effort.
@Creighton -- Ah, that is the *right* question.
(Devin, I *knew* you would bring it, dude. It's ON!)
Silly me, you guys are right! We aren't at war at all! Pres. Obama and A.G. Holder have it all wrong. We're only at war if Congress SAYS we are at war.
If only mass-murderers like KSM agreed with you.
I guess the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) resolution that Congress overwhelmingly passed immediately after 9/11 doesn't count for much. The AUMF authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those those nations, organizations, or persons determined to have planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the terrorist attacks." Congress didn't mention "war" anywhere in there, so you guys are absolutely right, this is just one massive police stakeout of Al-Qaeda. A giant "sting" operation.
Nic, I'd love to hear your explanation as to how smoothly the *not-war* would go if the CIA had to convince a federal judge that there is reasonable cause to secure a warrant before sending in a predator drone to bomb an Al-Qaeda safehouse. No, wait a minute, wouldn't we have to put the suspected enemy combatants in the safe house on a full-blown trial first before we can bomb them? Aren't they innocent until proven guilty too? How smoothly would the *not-war* go if American soldiers had to read enemy combatants their Miranda rights amidst heavy enemy fire before being able to take them into custody, and then have to promptly appoint an attorney to represent them before being able to interrogate the detainee, or if military personnel were required to "speedily" fly witnesses and themselves half a world away to fully litigate against the accused, or if the military were forced to divulge highly sensitive and classified intel to the accused through forced discovery, who then, if acquitted (very likely given the strict evidentiary bars in federal court for things such as chain of custody, hearsay, etc.) would simply take this information back to share with his comrades, or if an critical piece of evidence was obtained contrary to the federal rules - the poisoned apple from the poison tree scenario- and thus could not be used at trial, resulting in an acquittal, or if the combatant requests a change of venue for the lack of an impartial jury? Please, please tell me how these unintended consequences of affording *not-wartime* enemies these "basic human rights," as you call them, would not seriously undermine the *not-war* effort.
These are the rights allowed ALL criminal defendants who are tried in federal court. Can you see why the U.S. has never before used this justice model in times of *not-war,* but instead has used military commissions wherein military judges apply military law?
Let's not forget either that, under the detailed instructions of the Supreme Court (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), Congress specifically tailored military commissions, which Obama is still using despite the outrage of many liberals and the ACLU, for the purpose of trying these *not-wartime* enemy combatants which provide some, but not full habeas and due process rights. This now appears to have been a meaningless exercise after Holder's decision last week. Wait, maybe not - Obama and Holder have assured us that they will still use the commissions in some cases.
But this begs the question: Why use them for some of the *not-wartime* combatants, but try the most dangerous ones in federal court? I agree with McArthy here. This sends a tempting message to Al-Qaeda: The more Americans you kill, the more "basic human rights" you'll get in federal court. Is that the message America wants to send to its enemies?
@Nic -- you're totally wrong when you say "It [the constitution] says what the federal government can't do to people, any people." On those terms it would make absolutely no sense to even have U.S. citizens: in other words you're saying EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A U.S. CITIZEN...are you not? That's just nuts.
Your problem is you're confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence: it is the Declaration that appeals to universal human rights, the Constitution seeks to ensure those rights FOR CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES ONLY. Put another way all men are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," but those rights are only respected or "ensured" IN the United States by our Constitution. There's an important distinction there, I hope I explained it.
@Creighton -- We haven't officially "declared" war since WWII so on those terms America hasn't been at war since 1945. So technically it isn't a constitutional war, but prima fascie it is a practical war for all intents and purposes, just as much as Korea, 'Nam or Desert Storm.
btw I love how the guy behind Lindsey Graham is just laughing the whole time. That, to me, says it all :)
So why not just declare war? I wasn't criticizing anyone, I don't know anything about this stuff. Didn't KSM say he would plead guilty in military court and accept execution? Why not just do that?
There was one more thing I wanted to say on the earlier point about Holder's (and Obama's) reasons for doing this, because I also think this is another case of Obama trying to "repair America's image" to other countries.
My problem is that I think it has the exact opposite effect in the international community because it seems totally arbitrary for two reasons. 1) Both Holder and Obama have been publicly predicting guilty verdicts for KSM and the other terrorists being tried in federal court, as if it's already a done deal. 2) they're not sending ALL the Gitmo detainees to NY, but some are also going to be tried under military tribunal.
When you add those two things together, it has to look like Holder and Obama are hijacking the system, following "justice" (trying terrorists in our own court system) only when they're guaranteed to get a guilty verdict. If that is the impression of these other countries (I'm not going to lie, that's what it looks like to me at least) whose opinions Obama is so concerned about, then this decision will actualy weaken our international reputation, not strengthen it. It seems (to me) that even on its own terms this decision was foolish and recklessly dangerous.
@Devin - Wasn't it you that recommended Ron Paul's book to me, the one wherein he lies out precisely why the war is illegal, and the legislation passed by Congress unconstitutional? And I'm totally not following your "get a warrant before we can bomb them" thing.
I don't get what is so wrong with a trial. There are only two possible outcomes: either the accused is found not guilty and released, or found guilty and punished. Both good things. The outcome of indefinite detainment: rights trampled, no justice served.
@Jeff - If the Constitution is only for American citizens, then it is seriously flawed, otherwise it would have *said* so. I think this assumption, again, comes from approaching the document as a grant of rights, instead of leash on our government.
On a personal note, I'm curious: are you Devin's brother? And how does Creighton fit into this whole thing? Sorry, I feel like the outsider here, not knowing who everyone is!
Jeff and Devin are brothers, I married their sister Melissa. So I am the crazy liberal Obama-loving brother-in-law.
Nic, I'm guessing you either didn't read my last comment, or totally missed the boat. I made perfectly clear in that really long paragraph why it is wrong to give enemy combatants every right that criminal defendants in federal court have by pointing out the inevitable and disastrous consequences of such an ill-advised policy during this time of not-war.
And the warrant thing and the bomb scenario: I was trying to point out that we would be "trampling" all over the terrorits' presumption of innocence and their right to be secure in their person if we bombed them without giving them a full-blown trial first. By your logic, these guys are innocent until proven guilty, just like all other criminal defendants in federal court, right? So wouldn't our armed forces be the judge, jury, and executioner all in one if we bomb them without giving them a full-blown trial first? Is that why this *not-war* is unconstitutional? Are the military commissions that have been used ever since Washington also unconstitutional?
And just because I recommended a book does not mean I have to agree with every word in it. I enjoyed the book, it was thought-provoking, I knew you would like it, but my main critique is that there seemed to be a huge gap between his lofty ideas of what *should* be (getting rid of the Fed, all taxes, all foreign aid/wlefare, removing all troops from foreign countries, etc) and the harsh realities of the real world. Is American military presence abroad a big reason why much of the Muslim world (and others) hate us and want to attack us, as Dr. Paul suggests? Probably, but we can't hop in a time machine and change the last 100-150 years or so of U.S. interventionist foreign policy. I wish we could, but it is all water under the bridge now.
Our enemies don't care if the AUMF is unconstitutional or constitutional, they don't care if Congress has formally declared war against them. They are waging a war, not petty crimes, against this country. This, I hate to say it, is the reality we face. To continue to ignore reality, handcuff the military to defend this country, and fantasize about how rosy world opinion about America will be suddenly restored, and how terrorists would lay down their weapons if we treat them as merely your garden-variety criminals and give them all the rights that come along with it is incredibly naive and weak.
Jeff is my brother and Creighton is my bro-in-law.
This is a beautiful discussion. I wish I had time to look into it more.
Devin, I totally agree with your analysis of why war criminals or enemy combatants should be treated differently than U.S. Citizens. The principles and full protections of the Constitution do not fully apply to our nation's enemies. As for the distinction argued between Jeff and Nic regarding who the protections of the Constitution apply to that is a difficult question. The Constitution specifically mentions that certain privileges/rights are for citizens of the U.S. (see 15 amendment "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be abridged by the United States or by any State.) But at the same time it leaves out that certain rights are retained only by citizens (such as Nic's example of the 5th amendment which simply says "no person.") The presumption may be that they meant what they said - leaving out the qualification of being a citizen for a reason.
In any case the Constitution doesn't clarify the court system. So we don't have to give enemy combatants the same privileges we give citizens. Should we give them a trial? Probably but it doesn't have to be the same in form as what they would recieve if they were your garden variety criminal. I agree with Devin that military tribunals should be the arena where enemy combatants are tried.
Devin, I only disagree with you on one point and maybe I just didn't understand you. I do not believe it is the government who gives us rights. Rights are already ours. The government of the United States was established to protect our rights. The Bill of Rights is not the government giving us rights it is a list of pre-existing rights, rights that exist without government, that they cannot infringe upon.
The Bill of Rights is not meant to be an exhaustive list of our rights but llustrative. As you all probably know many of the founding fathers didn't want a Bill of Rights. Why? Because the presumption was that those rights existed already and we didn't need to list them all. By specifically listing rights you create a presumption that those are the only rights we have and that government can do anything they want as long as they do not infringe upon those rights. That later presumption is wrong. The government can only do what is permitted by the Constitution. We, the people, can do far more than is expressly granted in the Constitution, or at least we should be able to. Sorry, this paragraph is probably somewhat inarticulate as to what I am trying to say. In short, the Constitution is a leash on the government not the people.
My name is Matt. I'm Devin's brother in law. My name says Kristin b/c i'm on her computer and she was signed in to gmail.
Let me clarify: The Constitution gives us rights, I agree with Matt and Nic that it merely clarifies or defines (not exhaustively) rights we already had. I apologize if I led you to believe I thought otherwise.
Sorry! The Constitution does NOT give us rights - it's been a long week :)
You're right, Devin. I'm speed reading because the Internet has managed to reduce my attention span to that of a goldfish. Sorry.
I think that we actually all agree quite a bit more than we're letting on, and we seem to be having two different arguments.
I'm glad we can agree that the Constitution doesn't "grant" rights, and I think we can agree that it spells out what the federal government cannot do.
Now this term "enemy combatant" needs some definition, because there is a difference between war (a collective act of self-defense) and what we're doing with some of these folks in Guantanamo. For instance, when CIA agents kidnap a Canadian citizen in an American airport and brutally interrogate him for two weeks, then ship him off to Syria so he can be tortured in unthinkable ways for 10 months, then return him to his country without an explanation or anything -- how can we call that "capturing an enemy combatant on the battlefield"? I'm sorry, but just because a person is not an American citizen, it does not give Americans -- federal officials or otherwise -- the right to do whatever the hell we want with them. You've done a good job of explaining why you *think* we should be able to do this stuff, but your opinion doesn't stand up well against natural rights theory, the Constitution, or any sane person's conscience (Pres. Benson wrote, "An important test I use in passing judgment upon an act of government is this: If it were up to me as an individual to punish my neighbor for violating a given law, would it offend my conscience to do so?").
Now, since I'm headed to Cache Valley in a few minutes to have a New Moon premiere celebration (yes, I'm a 12-year-old girl deep down inside), I won't be monitoring this post for rebuttals as I should. Devin, like I said, I'm going to post some stuff at nichooton.com here in the next couple of days that spell out my stance in more detail. I invite all your readers to check it out and comment.
Wow, wow!! I love how you totally just put words in my mouth Nic. Really? How do you equate *anything* I've said on this post and twist it somehow into the absurd thought that I would fully support kidnapping Canadians from American airports for no reason, brutally torturing them for months, then returning them without an explanation or apology?! Where did that come from?!
Btw, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how giving "enemy combatants" or "terrorists" or "Al-Qaeda operatives" or however you want to define them - since you seem to get hung up on semantics and definitions - all the rights that a criminal defendant has in federal court will not seriously undermine the *not-war* effort.
I'll cut you some slack since my schooling has forced me to really read up on this very issue and study the national security Supreme Court decisions, but I've done my best to respectfully inform you of the implications of affording all the rights of a criminal defendant in federal court to our enemies, and the effects this would necessarily have on the war effort. I've also tried to explain why giving our enemies these full rights in federal court has never, ever happened before in U.S. history, and that military tribunals and/or commissions have always been the appropriate venue, but it doesn't seem to matter because "principles are more important than precedent" to you.
To make up unjustified arguments that you think I'm making, somehow twist my logic into a convenient strawman, tell me my opinion doesn't hold up to any sane person's conscience - which is an insult to Matt as well, another lawyer-in-training who "totally agrees" with me - tuck tail and run to never return again to this discussion is, well . . . I'm not going to resort to name calling.
You told me to "bring it," so I did.
I am late. I thought it was a good, lively discussion, for the most part. If our minds, not tongues, are sharp, and our skins, not skulls, are thick, we'll all teach more and learn more. Those are my general comments. Hopefully there are some still following this, so I'll venture some more specific comments. But don't expect me to be up at 2:00 a.m. to participate in an exchange!
@ Creighton. Hey, you asked some good questions about war and declarations. Here's my take and a further questions about how the "war on terror" should be dealt with under the Constitution.
I agree with Nic's point that (at least with regard to the case in point) the Constitution defines the circumscribed power of the federal government. The preamble describes the purposes, including "to provide for the common defense." The body of the constitution describes how this purpose is accomplished, and the roles of each branch. The framers divided up the national security functions of government in a way that could get the job done (protect the nation) without the federal government getting out of hand. National security is the area where despotism and tyranny have historically been most prevalent, so the framers were VERY concerned about getting this right. But under the articles of confederation the states were each too weak to get the basic job done, so they realized the federal government needed empowerment.
So, the chief executive is the commander in chief and can make war with the troops under his command. Congress has the power to declare war. More practically though, only congress has the power to fund war. It's hard for the president to make war with unpaid, unarmed troops. The judiciary, as usual, has the role of referee between the legislature and congress, using the Constitution as rule book. (The states have a check on federal power in this area - any standing armies in the United States are supposed to be under control of the States - hence the governor of each state is the commander of the National Guard within the state.)
It was noted earlier that the last time war was declared by the U.S. was in December, 1941. I happen to agree with Ron Paul in this area - that it would be healthier (and more true to the Constitution) if we scrapped the war powers act and started taking war seriously by having the people's representatives debate and vote on a declaration of war before conduting war on another NATION.
So, I would have preferred to have a vote in congress on a declaration of war against Afghanistan, and later Iraq. If congress declared war, then the executive can go for it with the official resolve of the American people, via their representatives. Instead, a wimpy congress authorized use of force. They also funded the conflict. Everything was thus left in the discretion of the President, and legislators all had escape hatches open if anything went wrong.
Next comment. Why this doesn't apply to KSM.
Still @ Creighton, second refrain.
The declaration of war issue has nothing to do with KSM or Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. These are not NATIONS. So how does the Constitution provide for the "common defense" when the threat is not coming (directly) from a foreign state against whom war may be declared? The role of congress in these war-like conflicts is defined (and circumscribed) in Article I, Section 8, where declaraions of war are also enumerated. These are congress' war-making powers (other than funding):
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
"To declare War; to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
Beautifully simple, no? I would like to know more about "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" but suspect that we should have these out against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.
The first real test of U.S. war-making powers was in the 1790s against certain Berbers operating out of North Africa. I can see no reason why this isn't a valid precedent for making war on individuals and groups who are not NATIONS.
War should be about self-preservation. The State can legitimately preserve itself from foreign or domestic threats so long as it legitimately preserves the people it serves. When the State ceases to preserve the people, then the people can legitimately make war on the State. The Declaration of Independence is all about justification of the Revolution on that ground. The non-exhaustive list ("among these . . .")of inalienable rights were mentioned in the preamble.
So, who can help me on this? Why doesn't Congress help now to "provide for the common defense" by acting to "define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations," "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal," and "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" ? ? ?
Think of the prolems that would be solved. Renditions, waterboarding, Guantanamo, and a whole range of other issues would be resolved according to the will of the people using mechanisms that every member of congress, the President, every federal judge and to the last person every member serving in the military has sworn to uphold and defend.
Who is the main (not only) culprit for the confusion and strife in this area? Congress. Who is the main culprit for Congress' delinquency? We the people, for electing them and not holding them to the Constitution. Who says bipartisanship is dead?
I agree with Devin, at the end of the day, that there is a big gap between the way things are and the way they ought to be. That gap is what makes your question, Creighton, so hard to answer.
"If the Constitution is only for American citizens, then it is seriously flawed, otherwise it would have *said* so"
Response: it does say so in the biggest letters and the most important place--THE TITLE! It is "The Constitution of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"...it isn't "the Constitution of the world."
If you want to claim the Constitution of the United States applies in force to non-U.S. citizens then that would make it a hegemony of the entire world. It isn't, that's just crazy.
Nice call Jeff. I'm with you on that one. However, I'm going to slightly modify your proposition. I think the Constitution is the supreme law of this *land*.
To illustrate, if an illegal alien from say, Mexico, crosses the border and commits a crime in say, California, he or she will still be afforded constitutional rights in an Article III criminal court. However, regardless of whether that person is found guilty or innocent for the crime committed, he or she will still be deported for committing the crime of illegal entry (if convicted for the second crime, deportation will occur after jail time is served here). This isn't meant to be a commentary on U.S. immigration policy, but merely to illustrate that the Constitution applies to anyone physically in this country.
For that very reason the Bush lawyers suggested converting the Guantanamo naval base into a holding area for wartime detainees - because that base is located on Cuban, not American soil (the Cubans have been leasing us the land upon which Guantanamo is located ever since the end of the Spanish-American War). Again, this doesn't mean I'm endorsing Gitmo policy, I'm just trying to illustrate that the Constitution applies to citizens and non-citizens alike who are physically located in the United States.
Yes that's true, whether speaking geographically or anthropologically (?) the U.S. Constitution applies to the U.S. So I guess the main point is that when you step outside the boundaries of the U.S. and deal with non-U.S. citizens you're dealing with international law.
Thus an Afghani living in Afghanistan or an Iraqi living in Iraq are is in no way subject to or protected by the U.S. Constitution because they aren't in the U.S. and they aren't U.S. citizens. That's the point I guess I've been trying to make.
To be clear I'm not saying that people in other countries have no protections from us, only that they aren't grounded in the U.S. Constitution, they're grounded in their own laws or in international laws or rules: technically speaking there is no such thing as "international law" because there is no single international government that can enforce laws across nations. What you have instead are treaties and conventions that establish ethical codes, but there isn't much in terms of enforcing these rules.
This is going to sound extreme, but what all this means is that it really doesn't even matter that you declare war if you want to torture non-U.S. citizens--including that extreme Canadian analogy--as far as the Constitution is concerned, because we're dealing with international relations where THERE IS NO LAW, strictly speaking. So what if the CIA decides they need to go to Canada and torture a Canadian? I'm not saying Canada won't respond in any way, but they won't cite OUR Constitution to justify their retaliation. It's what we in political science call a "state of nature," which is basically anarchy: you can do whatever you want to other people but don't be surprised when they fight back if you piss them off.
In short, international relations is straight-up anarchy, every country for itself. Ya I'm sure tyrannical dictators are thrilled when our President gives lofty speeches about being "fair" to them and respecting their "rights," but that doesn't really change anything. At the end of the day EVERYBODY else will continue to pursue their own interest in every conceivable way whether or not that hurts us or helps us. Pretending otherwise only puts us at a disadvantage ESPECIALLY when we're fighting a war.
Post a Comment