Obama Asserts "Snowden" Should've Used The Courts

In his August 9th press event, President Obama’s said his decision not to attend the G-20 summit in Moscow next month wasn’t solely related to Russia's decision to grant asylum to Snowden. In further discussion on the Snowden matter, Mr. Obama asserted Snowden should’ve used our federal courts to address his Fourth Amendment concerns. Since that Friday press conference, many said they thought of what we (me and my bride) endured in our 13 year and hundreds of thousands of dollars Fourth (Third and esp. Fifth) Amendment civil rights fight. Even after winning unanimously in the 2005 SCotUS (8-0, Justice Roberts was not yet installed) thanks to some heavy lifting by lawyers like Jeffrey Bennitt and excellent Judges like Michael Nix, Jacob Walker (Lee County) and Susan Walker (Middle District of Alabama) who understand as well as defend our civil rights; the case was returned to Myron Thompson who again ruled against our civil rights. The second time up to the 2010 SCotUS under Roberts’ stewardship, the case was not forwarded to the full court (it seems by Justice Kagan or Sotomayor) where it was likely to win again, albeit not unanimously given the new mix of justices and their (mis)understanding of civil rights.

This is how (even more so with poor jurists like Dubina, Kagan, Roberts, Sotomayor, Thompson) federal courts work to overturn sound decisions and summary judgments in defense of our civil rights. Although Thompson’s most (in)famous ‘Ten Commandments Monument’ decision declaring himself arbiter of the interior décor of our court buildings is what comes to mind for most folks, I recall the Johnny Reynolds case (ongoing since 1985) to illustrate how incompetent the federal courts are with respect to quickly and definitively addressing civil rights violations. Johnny Reynolds died before he ever saw a decision; I suspect Mr. Obama would prefer Snowden die before he ever saw the light of a courtroom. It was clear in our case (esp. when we wouldn’t succumb to threats of $10,000/day fines, threats of financial ruin via Rule 11, etc.) the bullies wanted us to die and go away; they certainly didn’t think most folks could survive being made homeless, pay a mortgage/taxes on their house as others lived there, pay to reside elsewhere AND pay legal expenses… Those refusing handsome settlement offers to go away are denied the ability to reduce further victimization of others when a corrupt judge is willing to pluck the case from competent, honest jurists. The Honorable Susan Russ Walker’s capable hand (unanimously affirmed by the 2005 SCotUS) had to be denied to continue quashing these fundamental civil rights.

I suspect Mr. Obama’s rhetoric admonishing Snowden for not using our federal courts will be effective; most do not know how they work in fact. If Snowden is indeed correct about Fourth Amendment civil rights violations, our courts are not an option. More than enough judges are comfortably corrupt and clearly undisciplined by the Roberts Court (unlike the 2005 SCotUS which showed some promise of restoring our civil rights) to deny Snowden the light of a courtroom. This has become the ‘new normal.’ Even after many favorable summary judgments, affirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court to be granted one’s day in court, cases are recycled back to the corrupt and incompetent judges to deny justice. Despots quashing our civil rights know to keep grinding away in our courts to where the case finally dies as victims run out of money/resources, plaintiffs die or it simply is not forwarded by a Kagan/Sotomayor type. This is how politburo bullies operate.

Does anyone (including Mr. Obama) sincerely think a young man like Snowden could endure what we did? It breaks my heart to see Snowden’s father come to terms with what a despotic institution his son has taken on. I wish our parents had not witnessed the fraction of what we endured. Few know the courage it took my beautiful bride (of good spirit and the strongest sense of righteousness) to suffer the bullying and verbal abuse of ‘public servants’ like Terri Sewell (now in Congress) who continues to show such reckless disregard for our civil rights. In the end, if they were so confident to engage in 13 years of litigation expense, bullying tactics and threats - why deny a plaintiff’s day in court to justly lose? Does Mr. Obama, who knows exactly how the system works in fact, really think Snowden would’ve (or ever will have if he returns) been allowed his day in court on the 4th Amendment issue?

Instead of arguing if Snowden is an attention seeker, fraud, hero, patriot, traitor, etc., I prefer to find a lesson in recent events. US Army Private Bradley Manning held soldier status (was in uniform at the time of his offense) and recently sentenced to 35 years. If we operated under a Constitutionally correct system, this is a reasonable/just result. Mr. Edward Snowden was NOT a soldier. He worked as civilian for a federal govt. agency which has no sound Constitutional authorization to exist. The Constitution (for sound reasons) placed a two year appropriations limit on the Army. The founders rationally feared what may result from large standing federal armies in times of peace. The Navy on the other hand (given the purpose of securing the blessings of liberty by providing stable currency [coin money] to keep commerce regular between member States and other Nations trading [defend shipping/deter piracy] with member States in the coalition, provide the common defense [with the well regulated/provisioned militias] to promote the general welfare/domestic tranquility) did NOT have a similar appropriation limitation. Costs of providing a functioning market to keep trade of this sort regular are ongoing.

The full faith and credit clause was to allow borrowing for ‘durables’ like arsenals, coin money, custom houses, dockyards, frigates, port construction, etc. which are consumed over time. Those who wish to devote a long time (in excess of two years) to public service in defense can enlist in the Navy; as an aviator, seaman, etc. and if they prefer infantry/land artillery, etc. the Marines. It all operates under the same JAG corps and every two years Congress must decide to expand brigades, fleets, etc.; keep current levels; or if they will contract by BRAC, RIF, attrition or some other manner (hopefully more rational than ‘sequestration’) they deem apropos. The best of aviation/artillery/infantry may go to West Point on renewable two year contracts after long term Navy/Marine service where they’ve acquired knowledge of the most recent tactics and technology. The best of the two year Army enlistments can apply to Navy/Marines if they wish to be considered for a longer term/career contract.

How does this apply to Pvt. Manning? …he should never had been contracted/paid longer than two years and clearly did NOT show the commitment (nor the maturity/stability) to be in any position where sensitive intelligence was at his disposal - esp. in ‘peacetime.’ Of course, the notion of a Congress which actually did their job and declared war (defined objectives) would also remove a bunch of nonsense like Guantanamo and other issues designed to be dealt with via wartime military tribunals. Nonetheless, Manning was in Army uniform at the time of his offense, so while his duties shouldn’t exist (in peacetime) at his station/position - the sentence is just.

How does this apply to Snowden? …no civilian should be in a position to deal with sensitive defense information/intelligence (esp. in peacetime) not in a long term Navy/Marine enlistment. International military intelligence (with non-US citizens) is the responsibility of ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) by those in uniform who tend to care/have more camaraderie/empathy for others in uniform. Let’s be clear that non-US citizens do NOT have civil rights under our Constitution. Once it is determined a US citizen is involved (where civil rights DO apply) then the federal Marshal office must pick up the lead and concern for civil right violations apply.

I suspect those who’ve managed to read this far are either upset or confused, since most do not think the Constitution a document which provides sound guidance on this civil/military dilemma. This includes the naïve who believe without our provocative actions (which triggered the ‘blowback’ these past decades) we’d not require federal Marshal/ONI surveillance; even more so the redundant bureaucrats, brass and others who privately benefit from and/or believe the current extremist result makes us safer.

Let’s make this painfully clear; it is time to do away with our redundant, unconstitutional, unnecessary federal defense/security agencies, civilian and military. Air Force - the Army Air Corps was supposed to downsize in two year cycles after WWII; not become yet another brass laden DoD branch in 1947. They no longer show interest in supporting ground troops which should be Marine/Navy aviation - esp. in peacetime. FBI shouldn’t exist, we were doing fine before this redundant agency came along about a century ago proffering despicables like J. Edgar Hoover. If federal Marshals require more resources for their investigative division, go to Congress and justify increased appropriations for investigations.

Strike the CIA, it is ONI’s job - esp. in peacetime. Congress declares war then ONI may expand again and some of the old intelligence officers on 2 year Army contracts will be expanding to meet wartime requirements. This would be a great way to get rid of deadwood and redundant brass/bureaucrats; ONI can pick-up the best and brightest to do the job. Same applies to the NSA and all the other ‘hybrids’ big government extremists championed to blur the line between legitimate civilian federal law enforcement and common defense roles. This brings us back to Snowden. His position (along with the access to likely civil rights violations) shouldn’t exist. Furthermore, without the blurred line extremists have worked so hard to accomplish, Fourth Amendment violations would be much easier to avoid. Obviously, this is NOT the sort of thoughtful debate (looking to the Constitution for guidance) Mr. Obama is calling for, so little reason for readers to suffer more type illustrating other examples of this blurred line and redundancies impeding our security.

It would be nice for ‘Moscow on the Potomac’ to see the harm already done by the extremists who set us on this path and where it ultimately takes us. When cornering then Congressman Riley on the issue, he didn’t appear to possess the intellect or perhaps apathy to see the connection with the increased success of attacks like the USS Cole and 911 under the current politically correct result over a more Constitutionally correct result. It is hard to imagine ONI sending the USS Cole into Yemen with so many other friendly ports available. Again, those in uniform (ceteris paribus) care more about their comrades in arms who share the uniform than someone at the CIA, FBI, NSA, et al more interested in office politics to make their next GS grade level and pay raise. Furthermore, when a fellow Navy Officer tells a Capitan to be on alert for going into an unfriendly port (perhaps for something more than just refuel/provisions) it carries more weight from someone who knows what a burden that carries and the toll it takes on a crew. How much better may communication be between civilian law enforcement and common/military defense if there was only one federal civilian agency (without all redundant agencies’ upper level bureaucrats building/protecting their fiefdoms) working with ONI assessing foreign and domestic threats? This is where meaningful debate may begin to improve security and reduce spending.

In closing, I understand this is the inevitable progression of things in a nation increasingly embracing the Soviet path/result. I’m ashamed to type as one in the educational industrial complex the ratio of administrators to instructors is appalling and getting worse. My Congressman sits on the committee for Homeland Security (KGB if you prefer the old Soviet acronym) and the Armed Services Committee. Do you really think he’s anymore interested than Mr. Obama in meaningful debate of this sort to shrink government and improve the effectiveness of our security? My forecast is more feigned concern to cloak politburo avarice and desire for more power.