Tag: national security

Captain Ahab with Nukes: Let’s Chat.

By now most folks have heard of Signalgate, the scandal that involves Trump’s national security team using a commercial, unsecured app to engage in a group chat to discuss attacks on Houthis in Yemen.  The texts in addition to disclosing an imminent attack on Houthi targets also included internal White House policy debates, whether to postpone the attacks, and how to make “Europe” pay America for keeping shipping lanes open, and reflections on ‘deadbeat’ European. Later in the texts, the ‘order of battle’ for the attacks on Houthi targets and battle damage assessments was provided.  What has not been published is the name of an “active CIA intelligence officer” named by the CIA Director during the chat.

The White House claims the information discussed was unclassified.  The democrats roll their eyes and say it was classified. I don’t want to focus on the classified unclassified debate or the hypocrisy of the law and order rightwing.  To me the worst part of the group chat has nothing to do with the obvious classified nature of the information disclosed by the posse incompetente.  It’s what the texts reveal about Trump, our national security priorities, and his judgment in selecting his national security team.

First, the choice to use Signal was a conspicuous display of their sloppy amateurism. It explains why the Russians are running circles around Trump’s peace negotiating team.  Second, this motely group appears afraid to speak their minds to the boss.  That’s their core job, providing timely, frank, and honest advice.  It never ends well for Kings who have feckless and clueless advisors.  Third, it is clear our national security policy has nothing to do with America’s security but Trump’s personal vendettas, punishing those who trespassed against him.  Fourth, Trump is the personification of Captain Ahab but with nukes. Europe his white whale, the “Tariff” his whaling ship.

I was shocked at the sophomoric reactions to the serious life and death ramifications of their actions.  Instead of somber reflection that innocents died in that collapsed building – along with a bad guy – they send childish celebratory emojis texts.  When someone’ killed I always think, “what a better time than now to send a string of jingoistic emojis.”   They have the emotional intelligence of rocks.  

Damning as well, is that hours before our men and women flew into harm’s way, they recklessly telegraphed the attack to our adversaries, who, most likely have compromised Signal.  Did they not think to protect our men and women?  Their gross dereliction of duty betrayed the life and safety or these men and women.  A dishonorable sin in my eyes. They must resign.

The Department of Justice must open a preliminary inquiry whether any laws were broken by members of Trump’s national security team.  Mike Walz and Pete Hegseth must resign.  Sadly, my prediction is that Trump will use this incident to further his relentless attacks on a free press.  Trump will counterpunch with ordering Justice to open an investigation, but the target will be “The Atlantic” and the journalist who was the “accidental” invitee, a guest of Mr. Walz.

The Rule of Law:   Are Trump’s Executive Orders the New Bills of Attainder?

You may have noticed the term ‘Bill of Attainder’ recently in newspaper articles or streaming news services.  

A federal district Judge this week imposed a temporary restraining order on Trump’s Executive Order punishing a law firm that represents Democratic Party clients in general, and former special counsel Jack Smith in particular.  The Executive Order barred the firm, Perkins Cole, from federal contracts, stripped security clearances, and prohibited federal employees from retaining the firm for legal services.  The judge compared the Executive Order to a Bill of Attainder, writing that the Order ‘sent chills down her spine.’  Two things.  First, thank God someone has a spine in Washington DC, and two, it should send chills down everyone’s spines.

So, what is a Bill of Attainder?  Like many things in American Constitutional law, it has its roots in England.  William Blackstone’s mid-18th century “Commentaries on the Laws of England” provides the go to legal description of a Bill of Attainder.  Basically, Parliament could sentence a person to death, without a trial, through legislative fiat. Normally, for treasonous acts.  Execution for treason was a ritual in England and other monarchies.  After burning at the stake was banned in late 18th century, hanging, disembowelment while still alive, beheading  and quartering, became standard in England. Parliament could also seize property or banish a person from England simply through legislative acts, sometimes called Bills of Pain or Penalties.  America’s founders thought this a bad idea.  

The Constitution specifically prohibits Bills of Attainder.  At the Constitutional Convention, on Aug 22, delegates Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and James McHenry or Maryland introduced the clause “The Legislature shall pass no Bill of Attainder nor any ex post facto law.”  There was practically no debate, with most of the discussion on whether the latter part of the clause was necessary.  Which suggests they thought it not controversial to ban Bills of Attainder.  Nonetheless, coming very late in the convention, and before air conditioning, I imagine the urge to debate was wanning.  That said, many of the delegates were very familiar with Blackstone’s commentaries and some even had a copy in their personal library and thought the ban necessary.

In Article 1, which enumerates the powers of Congress, section 9, the Constitution states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.  In section 10, States were prohibited from enacting Bills of Attainder as well. While the proscriptions apply to Congress and State legislative bodies, it seems that the intent of the ban – and the spirit of the law — would also apply to Executive Orders.  An Executive Order, according the Chief Information Officers Council ( CIO.gov),  has, and I quote, “the force of law.”

I am not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that President Trump has weaponized Executive Orders to punish and impose pain on his political and culture war enemies.  Trump’s Bills of Pain and Punishment.

For instance, the creation of DOGE, an extra-legal government agency, to target and eliminate congressionally mandated and funded government programs.  Basically, hanging, gutting, and quartering the career civil service along with executive department and independent agencies without meaningful congressional oversight, public comment, or legal restraint. 

Another example, is the order to ban birthright citizenship through executive order: “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”  An Order that blatantly lied about the Supreme Court’s century old interpretation of the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship.  More on that in a forthcoming Blog on birthright citizenship. That order is motivated, it appears, by racial animus and is meant to punish the current wave of immigrants to America — which are overwhelmingly brown or black from, as Trump would say, “Shit Hole countries” — by making their children born in America stateless.

And finally, the Executive Order to “Protect the US from Foreign Terrorist and Other National Security or Public Safety Threats,” was used recently as a pre textual basis to detain a permanent legal resident and Palestinian activist and Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil as a national security risk. After his arrest he was sent to an immigration detention facility hundreds of miles away in Louisiana, even barring him from access to lawyers.  A judge stayed his deportation temporarily. That should scare the crap out of everyone.

Thankfully the courts have countered some of these executive orders, but will the Supreme Court sustain these lower court rulings.  That remains uncertain, even birthright citizenship is in jeopardy, I believe, given the present makeup of the Supreme Court.  If the Supreme Court decides to take up the Birthright case, and not let lower court rulings stand, that should send shivers of fear down every American’s spine.