Barack H. Obama Clearly No Franklin D. Roosevelt

On Feb. 11,  President Obama asked Congress to pass a Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the Islamic State (IS). In his letter to Congress, he wrote:

“My Administration’s draft AUMF would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...“Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations....

“The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership....

“It would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces.”

Section 3 of his proposed AUMF provides “This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate  three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.”

Compare Mr. Obama’s remarks with those of Franklin D. Roosevelt on Dec. 8, 1941, the day after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor -- when FDR asked Congress for a Declaration of War in these unequivocal words:

“Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. ...

“As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. ...

“No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. ...

“With confidence in our armed forces -- with the unbounding determination of our people -- we will GAIN THE INEVITABLE TRIUMPH -- so help us God.

“I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.”

President Obama’s Feb. 11 remarks are consistent with his Sept. 10, 2014 remarks, when he spoke of “degrading,” “destroying” and “managing” the “IS” threat.

Why didn’t Mr. Obama use FDR’s speech as a template?  And say:

“Over recent weeks a group of Muslim barbarians calling themselves; ‘The Islamic State’; have shamelessly and savagely beheaded Americans, Christians and anybody else, including other Muslims, they get their blood-stained hands on, who don’t share their despicable, perverted understanding of the Islamic faith. In addition, they have open and publicly declared their intent to kill Americans and fight jihad against  America and its people.

“All measures be taken for our defense ...

“No matter how long it may take ...  win through to absolute victory ...

“... we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

“I ask that the Congress declare that since the 9/11 attacks on our country, that a state of war has existed between the United States and all Islamic terrorist, by whatever name they currently style themselves.”

That would have clearly signaled to our people, our allies and our enemies exactly what our president and the American people intend to do in response to Islamic terrorism.

Instead of recognizing these groups already have declared war, and are at war with us, and unequivocally vowing “absolute victory,” the president sends Marie Harf, the State Department “ditz,” out with an inane message that we need to find “jobs” for suicide bombers!

In war, there is no place for political correctness, euphemism or mixed-messages. The American people, our allies, and our enemies must understand why. If our president’s goal is to “degrade,” “manage” or “shrink the Islamic State’s sphere of influence,” that is limited war.

Destroying the Islamic State, on the other hand,  is total war. That is what FDR vowed to do to Japan. We destroyed them to the point of absolute victory. They were unable and unwilling to fight further. FDR knew the job of the Japanese army was to kill Americans; “Jobs for Japanese” was not part of his war plan.

Mr. Obama says, “Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct [ground] operations.”

But if Americans won’t do what is necessary to protect America from Islamist terrorism, why would local forces sign up to serve as canon fodder?

I can understand the president’s reluctance to fight another ground war. Sadly, he has no easy choices. Most military experts say the war can’t be won by the use of air power alone. How do you eliminate terrorists hiding among the civilian population with air strikes alone?

The real question is, can America win a war, if America fights a civilized war to mange IS,  while IS fights war rejecting all international norms and conventions?

Can we successfully fight a war to manage “IS,” while they fight a war to destroy us? If we do, do we afford them an extended opportunity to strike us catastrophically? Can we afford to sit by while IS becomes a full-fledged terrorist nation-state, financed by oil revenues and the power of taxation?

Dithering only enables IS.n   The more money IS has, the more difficult our winning becomes.

FDR did not speak in terms of degrading or managing  Japan; he spoke of winning an “absolute victory.” FDR didn’t tell our friends and enemies that our war effort would not include “long-term, large-scale ground combat operations;” instead, he spoke of using “all measures.”

FDR didn’t impose a three-year time limit; he spoke of winning -- “inevitable triumph” --  “no matter how long it may take!”


Posted: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 12:10 am
By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015
John Donald O'Shea

Should the U.S. Attempt to Limit Entry by Radicalized Muslims?

On Saturday, Jan. 31, The Dispatch ran an Associated Press piece, headlined, “French fracture laid bare as 8-year-old boy praises terrorists:”

“In early January ... three Frenchmen with links to Islamic extremists went on their murderous rampage, killing journalists at the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. ...

“More French (residents) have embarked on jihad in Syria and Iraq that in any other European country -- over 10,000. Dozens of these fighters have returned, feeding fears that they could turn their battle skills on France.

“The minute of silence for victims (of the Charlie Hebdo massacre) ... was not respected by all students. Some children contested it; others walked out. ... An 8-year-old Muslim boy proclaimed, “I am with the terrorists.”

If radicalized Muslim immigrants are siding with the terrorists and against France, a Western democracy that admitted them to afford them a better life, why is there any reason to believe that at least some radicalized Muslim immigrants to the U.S. won’t side with the terrorists?

Rephrasing the questions, how many radicalized Muslim terrorists should be allowed to reside in the United States? How many radicalized Muslim suicide bombers? How many Islamists who believe the country should be governed by Sharia Law, rather than our Constitution, should we admit annually (and how would you determine whether a particular immigrant poses such a threat)?

According to a Pew Report, since 2006 about 100,000 Muslims enter the U.S. each year.

Wikipedia notes, “A 2013 Pew Research Center poll asked Muslims around the world whether attacks on civilians were justified. Globally 72 percent of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified, and in the US, 81 percent of Muslims opposed such violence. About 14 percent of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8 percent of Muslims in the U.S.) said violence against civilians is ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ justified.”

It is estimated that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Fourteen percent of 1.6 billion means there could be 224 million Muslims in the world who believe “violence against civilians is ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ justified.”

But if 100,000 Muslims are entering the U.S. each year, and if 8 percent of those believe “violence against civilians is ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ justified,” how, short of barring entry to all Muslims, do we keep that 8 percent out? And how do we insure that their children will not be radicalized as were  Boston Marathon suspects, the Tsarnaev brothers and the 8-year-old French boy?

The 2013 Pew Report indicates that throughout the Muslim world, terror and the murder of innocent civilians is deemed “justifiable” to 224 million Muslims. Consider three stories that have appeared in The Dispatch over the last few weeks:

Two French Muslims killed 13 French journalists employed at Charlie Hebdo. Why? That satirical magazine published an unflattering cartoon about Muhammad. A third Muslim, one of their associates, killed four civilians in a Jewish grocery store. Why a Jewish store?

According to Amnesty International, as many as 2,000 women, children and elderly people were murdered  in the Nigerian town of Baga by the militant Muslim Boko Haram militia.

On Dec. 16, 2014, Taliban gunmen attacked a military-run school and killed 141 people -- almost all of them students,  innocent children. The murders were so barbaric even Taliban militants in neighboring Afghanistan decried the killing spree, calling it “un-Islamic.”

I don’t mean to imply or suggest that all Muslims who enter our country are terrorists, suicide bombers, or Sharia Law proponents. They aren’t. But the 9/11 terrorist murders, and the Boston Marathon murders conclusively demonstrate that at least 21 Muslim “immigrants” were terrorist murderers.

And while the great majority of Muslims coming to America are peaceful, decent people looking for a better life, how many al-Qaida, Taliban or ISIS adherents are slipping in among them?

So, I refer to the questions I asked in the opening paragraph.

If one in 100 Muslims admitted into the U.S. is a terrorist or a suicide bomber, or a Sharia Law proponent, is it in the best interest of the American people to admit that 100?

If only one in a 1,000 turns out to be a suicide bomber is that risk worthwhile? How about if one in 10,000? One in 100,000?

I raise these politically incorrect questions because Reuters reported last May 22nd,  “The Justice Department has tapped a veteran prosecutor to probe the flow of foreign fighters, including Americans, who are joining Syria’s rebels. Our government is concerned with the danger of these radicalized militants returning home.” (reuters.com/article/2014/05/22/us-usa-syria-foreigners-idUSBREA4L0UC20140522)

The fear is that when they are done fighting in Syria, they will return to the U.S. to kill here -- just as many have done in France. If this government and this Justice Department have concerns, every American should have like concerns. And while the president is “ending” America’s war on radical Muslim terrorists,  I see no evidence to date terrorists are ending their war against America -- or anybody else who disagrees with them.

So at least two questions remain.

-- How does America keep Islamic terrorists from slipping in while admitting peaceful Muslims immigrants? And

-- If 8 percent of Muslims immigrants admitted to America, and/or 8 percent  of the children of peaceful Muslims admitted to America are going to take up the cause of radical Islam or demand Sharia Law for America, is it wise to admit even their peaceful parents?


Posted: Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:00 am
By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015
John Donald O'Shea
ea

Obama Must be Churchill, not Chamberlain

Iran is playing “Hitler.” Who is in the White House? Chamberlain or Churchill?

When it comes to foreign policy, it appears that it is amateur hour in the White House.

President Obama appears to be an ideologue, with immutable opinions -- opinions that take no account of existing facts. He is like the television weatherman who tells us, “It will be partly cloudy and sunny for the rest of the afternoon,” while at that very time, hail is pouring down outside his TV studio -- he has his teleprompter, and can’t bother to look out the window!

In case you haven’t noticed, the Muslim world is in utter chaos.

While President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry continue to dither (“negotiate with Iran”) over its efforts to build a nuclear bomb, Iran has built an 88.5 foot ballistic missile, which is sitting on a launch pad just outside Tehran. According to the Jerusalem Post, “The expanded range of Iran’s ballistic missile program as indicated by the satellite imagery makes clear that its nuclear weapons program is not merely a threat to Israel, or to Israel and Europe. It is a direct threat to the United States. The reason why is obvious, if even without a nuclear bomb, Iran possesses chemical and biological weapons.

In addition, in March, the Iranian defense ministry ceremoniously displayed eight new anti-ship ballistic missiles, known as the Khalij Fars. According to Jane’s Defense Weekly, these weapons have the capacity to hone in on a ship’s infrared signature, which means that it can change direction while in flight to more accurately pursue a moving target up to 190 miles away.

In June, 2014, Vice Adm. James Syring, director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, told a congressional subcommittee the  Khalij Fars “is capable of threatening maritime activity throughout the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.”

In Lebanon, Iran provides Hezbollah with financial aid, training, weapons, and explosives from Iran. In November 2013, Israeli security officials learned that Hezbollah had close to 200 Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicles, including those that can track movement from high altitude and “kamikazes” that can avoid capture by radar and fire or drop munitions from low altitudes. In a rare televised appearance on Nov. 4. 2014, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned of a third Lebanon war and stated that Israel should close “all of your airports and your ports” in the event of one.  Nasrallah threatened Israel and claimed that “there is no place on the land of occupied Palestine that the resistance’s rockets cannot reach.” (jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/hizbollah.html)

And now, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels seized control of the Yemeni government, forcing the pro-American President to resign. The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer writes, “While Iran’s march toward a nuclear bomb has provoked a major clash between the White House and Congress, Iran’s march toward conventional domination of the Arab world has been largely overlooked -- In Washington, that is. The Arabs have noticed. And the pro-American ones, the Gulf Arabs in particular, are deeply worried.”

Recently, the pro-American King of Saudi Arabia died. His successor will find his Saudi Arabia (Sunni) surrounded by Shiites, loyal to Iran: Yemen to the south, Iran to the East and Syria (pro Iranian) to the North. And worse, an unreliable ally in the White House. An American president who believes that America should “lead from behind” (to wit, Libya). A president who draws “red lines,” only to later ignore them.

Regardless what you think of Mr. Obama’s predecessor in office, one thing was clear to Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia: America was their ally, and America would go to war to protect them. The first President Bush demonstrated that when Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait.

Now pro-Iranian Shiites have seized Yemen. Will Mr. Obama intervene as President Bush did, or will he be content to “deplore?”

If he fails to intervene, in the short term, he will destroy all belief that America is a reliable ally in the capitals of Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the small Gulf States. In the longer run, I am afraid it will lead to the worst war the world has ever seen in the Middle East.

I say this, because I don’t think Israel is going to wait until Iran is so powerful that Israel has no chance of winning. Right now Saudi Arabia is doing the best it can: It is seeking to put off the war by depressing the price of oil to deprive Iran of oil money it would otherwise have to finance its military build-up.

I have quoted Winston Churchill before. It is even more applicable today.

“The duty (of the ministers of state) is first so to deal with other nations as to avoid strife and and war and to eschew aggression in all its forms, whether for nationalistic or ideological objects.

“But the safety of the State, the lives and freedom of their fellow countrymen ... make it right and imperative in the last resort, or when a final and definite conviction has been reached, that the use of force should not be excluded.

“If the circumstances are such as to warrant it, force may be used.

“And if this be so, it should be used under the conditions which are most favorable. There is no merit in putting off a war for a year if, when it comes, it is a far worse war or one much harder to win ....

“For the French Government to leave her faithful ally, Czechoslovakia, to her fate was a melancholy lapse from which flowed terrible consequence.”

If war is coming, and I think it is, I would rather fight Iran now when it is without nuclear weapons and a fully tested, fully operational ICBM. Mr. Obama has a fateful choice:

He can be Neville Chamberlain or Winston Churchill.

Iran, like Hitler, is advancing one step at a time, and is playing for keeps.



Posted: Saturday, February 7, 2015 12:00 am
By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015
John Donald O'Shea

Inflate-gate Insipidity Passed off as News

Long ago, I quit watching the evening news on NBC, ABC and CBS. Here’s why.

On Jan. 22, there were at least four major world news stories breaking -- news that adversely affects the security of America and our key allies.

Shiite rebels in Yemen -- backed by Iran -- were holding Yemen’s President Hadi captive in his home. Hadi had been a key American ally in our efforts to destroy the al-Qaida fighters in Yemen.

Abubakar Shekau, the leader of Boko Haram in Nigeria told the world in a YouTube video that the murder of 2000 women, children and elderly in the Nigerian town of Baga was “nothing compared to future attacks” that he was planning, and justified Boko Haram’s mass murder saying God commanded the massacre!

 The Islamic State vowed to kill two Japanese hostages unless a $200 million ransom was paid within 72 hours.

Then at 5 p.m. (EST) on Jan. 22, King Abdullah, King of Saudi Arabia, died. In President Obama’s words, “As a leader, he was always candid and had the courage of his convictions. One of those convictions was his steadfast and passionate belief in the importance of the US-Saudi relationship as a force for stability and security in the Middle East and beyond.” His death comes at a time when the Saudi state finds itself surrounded by enemies: Iran to the East, The Islamic State to the North and now Yemen to the south.

So, on Jan. 22, 2015 what was the lead story on the three major networks? What did NBC, CBS and ABC choose as their most important news items of the day?

What item did NBC run for the first three minutes and 45 second of its “Nightly News”?
To what story did CBS devote the first two minutes forty-five seconds of its “Evening News?”
And what story did ABC deem worthy of approximately four minutes and forty seconds of coverage on its “World News?”

Inflate-gate! (profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/22/deflategate-leads-all-three-network-newscasts/)

-- NBC Nightly News:  “On our broadcast tonight, full denial from Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and from his coach, as a football inflation scandal remains bigger than the upcoming Super Bowl, as the question remains: Who or what was responsible?”

-- CBS Evening News: “Tonight, caught in a pressure cooker: Is Tom Brady a cheater? Quarterback Tom Brady responds to reports that the Patriots used deflated footballs in the AFC Championship Game.”

-- ABC World News Tonight: “On this Thursday night, the breaking news, the scandal before the Super Bowl. The star quarterback, Tom Brady, answering the question: Are you a cheater? Tonight, how Brady explains those deflated footballs, who handled them after they were handled by the refs, and what now for the football star with the supermodel wife?”

Was Inflate-gate really the day’s most important story? I fully understand that NFL rules require that game balls be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 PSI.

But is the fact that 11 footballs were under-inflated by 2 psi each, more important for the American people than the stories itemized above?

For starters, is anybody really claiming New England beat Indianapolis because balls were under-inflated?

The Patriots won the stupid game 45-7! Was it under-inflated balls that made it possible for Legatee Blount to run through the Colts for 145 yards? Or was it superior blocking, or inferior tackling?
Then again, if the idea of under-inflating a football is to make it easier to grip, what’s the big deal?

In wet weather the refs wipe the ball off and cover it with a towel to make it easier to grip. They bring dry balls into the game!

Quarterbacks use hand-warmers to warm their hands.

At least six quarterbacks -- not to mention almost all the wide receivers -- use special tacky gloves. Indeed Nike advertises their gloves as “Magnigrip CL palms with Nike graphics for superior tack and grip in all conditions.” Superior tack means they are sticky.

So, at a time when the whole Middle East is blowing up, and at a time when the sundry Muslim factions are murdering anyone who dares to disagree with their faction’s, views, why are the major networks -- and even Fox! -- wasting air time with Inflate-gate?

To borrow a phrase from our illustrious erstwhile  Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, “What difference does it make?”

Of course, if a properly inflated football really is a significant matter of world  news, why can’t each team select 12 balls of their choice (as is presently being done), give them to the refs, and then have the refs randomly put the balls in play without reference to whom supplied them?

That way if there is a significant  advantage to using an under-inflated ball, there will be a 50-50 chance that that advantage might acrue to the other team.

And maybe the networks will focus on real news.

Posted: Sunday, February 1, 2015 12:10 am - Quad-Cities Online
By John Donald O'Shea


Copyright 2015
John Donald O'Shea

Gruber Uncovers Obamacare "Shell Game"

Are you one of those “stupid” American voters who trusted President Obama and the Democrats in Congress to provide health insurance for 39 million uninsured Americans at no additional cost to the American people?

Do you recall President Obama saying, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future. ... Period.” (youtube.com/watch?v=NCSrP44QgZ4)

My daughter’s private medical insurance costs roughly $4,000 per year. Assume, arguendo, that the government can somehow provide comparable insurance at one-fourth of that cost. If 39 million uninsured people now have coverage under Obamacare, and each policy costs $1,000, the annual cost of providing that insurance is $39 billion.

Where is that $39 billion coming from? It can only add to the deficit, if it is borrowed. Therefore, to avoid borrowing, it must be paid in taxes. Did the president tell the American people that? Did he mention Obamacare for the uninsured would be paid for by taxes on those who had already paid for their health insurance? By taxes on some existing insurance policies? By taxes on medical devices? Or by other hidden taxes?

In October of 2013, at a panel discussion at Pennsylvania University,  Jonathan Gruber made the following remarks:

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it’s written to do that.

“In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in -- you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money -- it would not have passed. OK?

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to [obfuscate to] get the thing to pass.

“Look, I wish ... we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

Who is Jonathan Gruber? In November 2014, here is who President Obama said he is: “some adviser who never worked on our staff [who] expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with.”

But was the president being any more honest here than he was when he said the country could insure 39 million people without increasing the deficit? Was he intentionally understating Gruber’s influence on Obamacare  to distance himself from Professor Gruber --— just as he had earlier distanced himself from his pastor of 20 years, the Rev. Wright?

Here are the president’s 2006 remarks before the Brookings Institute: “You have already drawn some of the brightest minds from academia and policy circles. Many of them I have stolen ideas from liberally, ... [including] Jon Gruber.”

According to the Tampa Bay Times fact-check article, “Gruber visited the White House a dozen times from 2009-10, according to visitor logs. This included a July 20, 2009, meeting with Obama.

“According to a 2011 NBC news story, Obama or his staff sat down a dozen times during 2009 with three different people who helped advise Romney’s health care overhaul in Massachusetts, including Gruber.

“‘The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts,’ Gruber told NBC News in 2011.  ‘They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.’

“Gruber also had meetings with many of the heavyweights on Obama’s economic and health care staff: Peter Orszag, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget; Larry Summers, director of the National Economic Council; Jason Furman, the deputy director of the National Economic Council; and Jeanne Lambrew, the director of the Office of Health Reform for the Department of Health and Human Services.”

The Tampa Bay Times concludes that Mr. Obama’s Novemeber 2014 dismissive remarks about Gruber as, “some adviser who never worked on our staff,” were mostly false.

“By HHS’ own documentation, Gruber was considered ‘uniquely positioned’ for a contract job assisting with Obama’s health care reform efforts. ... [H]e was a very important adviser.

“Further, while Gruber never worked ‘’on our staff,’’ he was paid by the federal government quite handsomely, and worked very closely with the staff. ... He also met with Obama in the White House and had a dozen meetings that often included some of the most senior members of Obama’s economic and health care teams.”

Telling the American people that we can provide free insurance for 39 million uninsured people without adding  “one dime to our deficits” was a half-truth -- as well as a half-lie. It was bait-and-switch. Slight-of-hand. The president’s remarks were made to gain the support of gullible Americans too “stupid (Gruber’s words!) to realize there is no such thing as a free lunch.

The president gulled the gullible by focusing the attention of Gruber’s stupid Americans on the pea -- the deficit -- while concealing tax increases under the shells.

Gruber is being honest when he says. “This bill was written in a tortured” way to make sure the CBO didn’t score taxes as taxes. And Gruber was being honest when stated that if “you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money -- it would not have passed.”

Are you one of Gruber’s stupid American voters who trusted  President Obama and the Democrats in Congress to provide health insurance for 39 million uninsured Americans a no additional cost to the American people?

And by the way: the CBO in October of 2014 revised its forecast saying that Obamacare will increase the deficit by $100 billion over the next decade!

Posted: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 12:00 am

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015 John Donald O'Shea 

Nation Cannot Afford Return to the "Blood Feud"

We have a judicial system in America. It was fashioned and put in place by men conversant with Greek, Roman, Germanic and Canon law -- men who preferred the English common law to the Inquisition. Men who made a deliberate choice that the jury system was the best system developed over 2,500 years to safeguard the liberties of the individual.

Now a segment of our society claims to have no faith in our system of justice and resorts to mob rule.

The mobs in Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere are still furious. They refuse to accept grand jury refusals to indict police officers in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. The protesters instead have made up their own minds that the officers acted without justification and that the grand juries involved were corrupt.

Some demand that Attorney General Eric Holder and his U.S. Justice Department intervene and prosecute the officers involved for Civil Rights violations  -- even if the evidence indicates no racial motivation. Other “peaceful protesters” -- in the course of their “peaceful” protests --  have burgled, looted and burned the business properties of their entirely innocent neighbors in Ferguson. Still others have cluttered the streets of New York, chanting “What do we want? Dead cops!”

Here is a summary of the evidence the grand jury heard the Brown case (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown):

“Wilson’s DNA ... was found on Brown’s left palm. Brown’s DNA was found on the left thigh of Wilson’s pants, on the [officer’s] gun, and on the inside driver’s door handle of Wilson’s police SUV, the result of Brown’s blood spilled staining Wilson’s pants and the door handle. ...

“Documents released after the grand jury proceedings show that Wilson washed blood from his hands and checked his own gun into an evidence bag. ...

“Dr. Michael Graham, the St. Louis medical examiner, said blood was found on Wilson’s gun and inside the car, and tissue from Brown was found on the exterior of the driver’s side of Wilson’s vehicle, both of which were consistent with a struggle at that location.

“According to Judy Melinek, a San Franciscan pathologist, the official autopsy, which stated Brown’s hand had foreign matter consistent with a gun discharge on it, supported Wilson’s testimony that Brown was reaching for the weapon, or indicating the gun was inches away from Brown’s hand when it went off.

Three autopsies were performed on Brown’s body, with all three noting that Brown had been shot at least six times, including twice in the head, with no shots in his back.”

Imagine if police officers reacted the same way. Recently two New York City policemen were murdered, while sitting in their squad cars. Assume that their murderer, rather than committing suicide, had been arrested, tried and found not guilty. Would the N.Y. police have been justified in looting and burning neighborhood  businesses? Would you approve their marching and chanting, “What do we want? Dead criminals!”

A day doesn’t go by when a policeman isn’t required to break up a bar fight. And while the police are rarely killed dealing with drunks, the officers are frequently hurt. Often seriously. In most cases the assailant is arrested, charged with aggravated battery and prosecuted. But what happens when the police believe the defendant deserves prison time, and the judge imposes probation? The injured officer and his coworkers may not feel that “justice” was done. But they certainly don’t burn down neighborhoods, loot buildings and call for the killing of the thug who got probation.

In America, believe it or not, you do not have a constitutional right to loot liquor stores. You do not have a right to burn businesses because you perceive that you have been the victim of past injustice.

In Greece, 2,500 years ago, the Greek playwright Aeschyluis wrote tragedies. His play “The Eumenides,” deals with two very different systems of justice. The Goddess Athena has brought to the city of Athens a new system of criminal justice.

Under her new system the defendant’s guilt or innocence is determined by a jury of 12. Orestes, who has killed his mother because she had murdered his father, flees to Athens to escape the revenge of the “Furies.”

The Furies (aka, “The Erinyes”) --— the more ancient gods -- pursue Orestes to Athens. Under their more ancient law, the Furies, demand “blood for blood;” Orestes, the matricide, must pay for his mother’s blood with his own. When the jury splits, six for conviction, and six for acquittal, and when Athena herself breaks the deadlock, casting the deciding vote for acquittal, the Furies are outraged, and rage:

“Gods of the younger generation, you have ridden down the laws of the elder time, torn them out of my hands. I, disinherited, suffering, heavy with anger shall let loose on the land the vindictive poison dripping deadly out of my heart upon the ground; this from itself shall breed cancer.”

Our justice system is not perfect. Nothing human is. But it’s the best Americans have been able to devise. As Justice  Oliver Wendell Holmes states in “The Common Law,” “The earliest forms of legal procedure were grounded in vengeance. ... Roman Law started from the blood feud .... German law began that way.”

Justice Holmes states that Roman and Germanic law sought an alternative, the “composition”  -- that is, “damages” -- paid to buy-off the blood feud.

America has a choice. It can seek justice within our system of justice, or it can return to the vengeance of the blood feud --  the vengeance  of the Furies.

But recall: our system provides not only criminal remedies, but civil remedies for money damages, as well. The next of kin of Brown and Garner can sue for wrongful death and seek money damages. And if they do, they only have to prove that it is more likely than not that the officers involved used excessive force. If the physical evidence and witnesses do indeed support their claims, winning should be easy.

If not, then their only remedy appears to be to ignore the facts and howl for vengeance.

Posted: Saturday, January 10, 2015 12:00 am
By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015 John Donald O'Shea

Why Didn't Police Use Deadly Force to Stop Looting?

Have you wondered why the police did nothing to stop the arson, burglary and looting of the mob in Ferguson, Mo? Have you wondered why police did not use deadly force to suppress the riots there?

Under the English common law, police were authorized to use deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony, or prevent the escape of a person who had committed the felony. At the same time, under the common law, deadly force could not be used against misdemeanants, except in the case of riot, but even then only after the rioters had been ordered to disperse.

This is why when Major John Pitcairn upon reaching Lexington (April 1775) and finding the colonials, in what he perceived to be an “unlawful armed assembly,” ordered the colonials assembled  to "Lay down your arms, you ... rebels, and disperse!” He was “reading them the riot act.”

But in England before the American Revolution, almost all felonies were punishable by death. That obviously is no longer the case. In Illinois today, for example, crimes such as theft, burglary and robbery no longer carry the death penalty, and are generally punished by imprisonment or by some form of probation.

The leading case on use of deadly force by a police officer is the U.S. Supreme Court's Tennessee v. Garner (1985). In that case, a Memphis police officer, responding to a burglary call, ordered the fleeing suspect to halt. When the suspect ignored the command and continued his flight, the officer shot and killed him.

The officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" the suspect was an unarmed 17- or 18- year-old of slight build. Tennessee v. Garner was a civil case for damages brought by the father of the boy shot by the officer.

The Tennessee statute in question provided that "if, after notice of the intention to arrest (has been communicated by the officer), the defendant either flees or forcibly resists arrest, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."

The Supreme Court first held that using deadly force to prevent escape implicates the Fourth Amendment. That Amendment provides the American people with the right “to be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizures. The court then explained:

"Whenever an officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away, he has seized that person. ... There can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment."

Based on that logic, the court next limited the police officers right to use deadly force, holding: “If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”

Given that holding, the reason rioters were allowed to run amok in Ferguson is obvious.

Rioters shown in the news videos were not “threatening police officers with weapons.” And unless there were people present in the businesses being looted and burned, looting and arson did not  “involve the infliction or threaten infliction of serious physical harm.” In short, deadly force would only have been justified if the police had interposed themselves between the mob and the buildings to protect the businesses, and if persons in the mob had first used or threatened deadly force against the officers.

But why put yourself in position to be killed by a mob? And if the police had responded to the mob’s use of deadly force with their own use of deadly force, even if 100 percent justified, what guarantees did the police have that the U.S. Department of Justice would not impanel a federal grand jury to investigate their violation of the mob’s civil rights?

Would the mob have been persuaded that the police officers’ response to the mob’s use of deadly force was justified? Or would the mob have chanted as the NY mobs did, “What do we want? Dead cops!” And then of course, the officers would have been sued civilly by the relatives of dead mob members for wrongful death.

So the police backed off and let the looters have at it. After all, it was only someone else’s property that was destroyed or stolen.

So, is looting and burning of businesses, and chanting “kill cops,” constitutionally protected freedom of expression? Peaceful assembly? I don’t think so. If it is, then the cops and anybody who opposes the looters should be able to chant, “kill looters,” and loot and burn down the homes of the looters.

If it’s fair for you to burn down and loot my business, why doesn’t equal protection guarantee me the right to loot and burn yours?

Posted: Saturday, January 3, 2015 12:00 am
By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015 John Donald O'Shea