Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has decided that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other 9-11 terrorists will be tried in New York in the criminal defense system.

I am entirely in favor of bringing them to trial swiftly and with the same representation that any war criminal is afforded.  These terrorists declared war on the U.S. and were captured and detained.

They are not accorded the same rights as a civil crime, nor is evidence gathered in war in the same manner as a police investigation.  What of communication and evidence gathered in war without a “proper chain”? 

And what of confessions obtained?  Will they be deemed inadmissable because the war criminals were not read Miranda rights?  Or because enhanced interrogation techniques were used?

And who exactly are their peers?  Is it U.S. citizens, other war criminals, those of Islamic faith, or non U.S. citizens?  How do we locate an impartial jury in New York?

These individuals should be tried before a war tribunal and punishment commenced.  To try them in civilian court is to commit the same error that occured with the Lockerbie bomber.

To avoid the death penalty, Abdel Bassel al-Megrahi was tried in Scotland and sentenced to life imprisonment.  Unbeknowst to most, he was eligible for parole after 20 years.

In exchange for an oil deal, he was released on compassionate grounds due to his immient demise.  In this case, immient has been rather lenghty and Scotland was not amused by his hero welcome in Tripoli.

Will this be another instance when the compassion for the criminal is placed before compassion for the victims?  Who exactly will be on trial?  And will the U.S. be safer because of this?

What tremendous sadness today as I learned of the shootings on Ft. Hood.  I was stationed at Darnall Army Hospital on Ft. Hood for 2 years after returning from South Korea.

This is a fine training hospital on the largest Army post and the only one with 2 active divisions-cavalry and armoured.  The surrounding area of Killeen has grown dramatically over the past 20 years.

The gunman was a physician psychiatrist who is an American citizen, but also of Muslin faith.  He was scheduled to deploy into the theatre of operations and had possibly undergone some harassment due to his religious faith.

Reports are that 12 died, and 31 are wounded.  How very tragic.  Many people are surprised that he could have gotten off so many shots without intervention and this in indicative of the misunderstanding of the military.

For those who oppose a standing military, we are accused of being war-mongers and I experienced this distasteful discrimination when I left active duty for medical school in 1982.

However, one is not permitted to carry a weapon on post, and all weapons and ammo are locked and must be signed out and issued even for practice weapons training which is required annually.

Therefore, civilian and military police would have to be called upon to provide support and intervention.  This would likely cause some delay especially given that it was a surprise attack and he may have been in uniform.

My thoughts and prayers to the soldiers and their families, and to my military family.  It is profoundly sad and demoralizing that this has taken place at all.

As veterans we continue to retain bonds to our brethren.  While we may not always agree with a particular conflict, we always support our fellow men and women in uniform.

Even now it is difficult to type this.  Please extend your prayers to these soldiers and their families and even the family of the attacking soldier.  Having lived, he will undergo court martial and imprisonment.

I do not excuse the major’s actions and wonder if the new hate crime legislation passed in the latest defense appropriations bill will stifle people from reporting suspicious comments and conduct that could be interpreted as discriminatory.

The highest constitutional function of the federal government is to provide for the common defense.  If we forego securing our nation in exchange for political correctness, then Americans of all races, religions, cultures, ethnicity or sex put their liberty at risk.

The war on terror, excuse me, now war on man-made disasters has taken off to a new level.

This week, we learn that Iran has a secret nuclear facility of which the administration was aware since January.  A ballistic missile is launched and the rhetoric is amplified.  And then there is Afghanistan.

Some conservative columnists suggest pulling out of Afghanistan.  They are attacked and the word “racism” is tossed about like a hot potato.  They supported the war when Bush was in power, but not now with President Obama, ergo…

Whether one is for getting out or continuing fighting, this in no time to avert one’s mind from seeing reality straight on.  False assertions and appealing rationalizations should be rejected as the untruths that they are.

Eight years ago, we knew that Afghanistan had never suffered a complete military defeat.  This is still true today.  We are already there, so this becomes a frivolous argument and it may be an additional reason we went into Iraq.

No general or president can know an exit strategy unless they can predict the future.  Leaving, poses as much danger to the region and to us, as staying and escalating our involvement.

We are told the situation is different now than when President Obama revealed his strategic plan for this necessary “good” war, especially after fraudulent elections.

We were aware President Karzai allied himself with bad warlords and the traditional media and policy wonks discussed the ramifications of fraud long before the elections were held.

Our strategy was to build on the local and provincial leaders while reducing government corruption in Kabul. Deteriorating conditions were widely acknowledged over the summer and the request for troops intentionally delayed.

VP Biden even suggested we did not need additional boots on the ground and could use selective aerial targeting of al-Qaida.  We see this as the charade it is: we are sort of continuing the fight, but we are simultaneously retreating.

Further, it implies that al-Qaida is separate from the insurgents among who they live and operate.  You cannot selectively protect civilians with an unmanned aerial drone strike.  This is a poorly conceived tactic.

Bush also rethought his strategy, and waited a year too long ask Rumsfeld to resign and employ a new general and a counter-terrorism engagement.  The president was however, focused on winning.

Do we have that commitment with the current administration? Are they willing to take the slings and arrows, criticism, that will be launched?  Do they have the intestinal fortitude for 3-5 years as General McChrystal envisions?

If the administration and Americans cannot go forward with the knowledge that we will persist until we can turn over security to the Afghani government as we have done in Iraq, then it is immoral to ask men and women to sacrifice.

Regardless of who is president, fight with enough troops or cut and run.  But don’t do a picket fence walk on the backs of American troops!

Some of you may have read in the Wall Street Journal last week of the latest sign of arrogance by our elected officials.

The Pentagon had requested 2 new Gulfstream luxury jets in their upcoming budget cycle.  Recall that Defense Secretary Gates had reduced the number of F-22 fighter jets that were scheduled to be produced in order to pare down the defense budget.  They have been a tremendous addition to our airpower and would protect the skies for future decades of Americans as well as other nations.

Further, the President has insinuated that he will hold back on missile defense shields which would protect both us and our allies from attack and would also be a strong deterrent of nuclear proliferation.  So is it no small wonder that citizens would be discouraged when they learn that Congress demanded that the Pentagon build 8 new Gulfstream jets.

The Pentagon only requested 2, Congress demanded and approved 8!  These jets are not used to protect American citizens or transport our incredible service people.  These luxury jets are used by Nancy Pelosi to jet back and forth to California or to some fundraiser somewhere.

They are used to ferry members of Congress and to do so at our expense!  Have you heard about the global warming trip to New Zealand, Australia and the South Pole, taken by members of Congress with their spouses?  Didn’t the trip rack up a considerable carbon footprint?

They could fly coach on commercial airlines helping stimulate the economy.  Especially given the struggling airline industry, this would seem to be a patriotic thing to do.  I pay my taxes under the strong recommendation of Vice-President Biden so as to increase my level of patriotism.  It was not enough to serve in the armed forces for 24 years.

This is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance.  Members of Congress have actually tried to justify this expenditure when it was uncovered.  They attempted to pass it off as a request by the defense department, but the Pentagon refused to play footsie.

As they should have done.  Congress needs to take the heat on this, especially when this administration and our legislative body try to cut costs in the only sector which should not be reduced in a time of war.

The bulk of the developed world has been able to expend its’ revenue on other sectors of its’ society while we  Americans have born the cost of protecting them.  What would have happened in the Balkans had we refused to send troops, weapons and equipment? There does not exist the willingness or manpower in Europe to have conducted its own military operation ending the genocide.

We spend about 4% of GDP on our military (twice that during the cold war), but our allies and NATO spend considerably less of their financial resources on defense.  Which brings us back to Secretary of State Clinton’s comments regarding expanding our nuclear umbrella.  We cannot continue to afford protection to other countries at no or little cost, and with little gratitude.

Jet the jets and take care of our military and our veterans!

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently visited South Korea and India.  During these visits, she was quoted as saying that if necessary the United States would expand its nuclear umbrella.

I realize this is only one small comment from the myriad of interactions and speeches she made, but it is perhaps the most significant.

This indicates that the current administration, meaning the United States, will not or cannot deter Iran or North Korea from complete nuclear armament.  Since we have not the political or military will to deter Iran from its quest for nuclear weapons, we will extend our nuclear umbrella in order to prevent other nations from developing their own nuclear warheads as protection.

Currently, we offer protection to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines.  We offer protection to Western Europe and they have relied upon the U.S. for its military protection while they in turn channeled financial resources toward their social-welfare states. We also afford protection to the moderate Arab states who most definitely do not wish for Iran to be a nuclear armed nation.

Worse yet, President Obama informed Russian President Medvedev that the U.S. would decrease its nuclear warheads even before the due date of re-ratification of the STARK treaty.  Our nuclear warheads need to be maintained and the computer systems updated but this discussion has been stalled in Congress and now we are offering to further reduce our aging stockpile.  Russia has maintained their weapon systems.

So we offer concessions to Russia, unilaterally, and we concede nuclear proliferation to Iran and North Korea.  We further complicate nuclear non-proliferation by delaying or foregoing a defensive missile defense shield in Poland (the strategic Polish-Czech ground-based defense) and diminishing our own security.

Let us hope that the pro-life, pro-gun democrats that were cultivated by the Democrat machine (in order to gain house and senate seats) join with their republican colleagues and put American interests back onto center stage.