The Alameda County Republican Party (ACRP) in California has a history of hostility, lawsuits, and in-fighting. But the November 17th monthly meeting is shaping up to be a war zone.

Last week, the ACRP Executive Committee gave their approval (4 ayes, 1 no, 1 abstain) to a resolution that would make a non-interventionist foreign policy the official position of the county party.

To pass, the resolution must receive 2/3rds approval from County Committee members at the November 17th meeting in San Leandro.

The county party is lead by RLC member Jerry Salcido, and most of its officers are also RLC members.  Looking at the Alameda County GOP Central Committee, I see at least 12-15 RLC members, too.  I guess we’ll find out if we have a majority on November 17.

Hopefully other county Republican Parties also consider adopting this proposed resolution.

Alameda County Republican Party — Proposed Resolution
Submitted by: Walter Stanley III, David LaTour, and Jerry Salcido

“Whereas, our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests; and

Whereas, the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous; and

Whereas, propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers America and our allies; and

Whereas, occupying countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us; and

Whereas, losing over 6,000 American Military personnel in the Middle East since September 11, 2001 is not a fair trade off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani and Afghan people are killed or displaced; and

Whereas, torture, even if referred to as “enhanced interrogation techniques” is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world country or a corporation is just as evil; and

Whereas, war and military spending is always destructive to the economy; and

Whereas, war time spending is paid for through the deceitful process of inflating and borrowing; and

Whereas, war time conditions always undermine personal liberty; and

Whereas, we as small government conservatives see our government’s interventionist foreign policy providing the greatest incentive to expand the government; and

Whereas, the only logical, conservative position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world; and

Whereas, the official positions for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests; and

Whereas, the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations; and

Whereas, our aggressive foreign policy and seemingly permanent presence in other countries throughout the world has served to weaken our national defense at home; and

Whereas, the borders’ of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are more secure than our own borders here at home; and

Whereas, our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and never changes from one administration to the next; and

Whereas, Christianity teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression; and

Whereas, diplomacy is superior to bombs and bribes and the illusion of protecting America; and

Whereas, the aggressive foreign policy of so called “neo-conservatives” is anything but conservative and has wasted more than $1 trillion on nation building and billions more on foreign aid; and

Whereas, there is a strong tradition of non-interventionism in the Republican Party that is exemplified by the legacy of Senator Robert Taft and the Old Right.

Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Alameda County Republican Party supports a non-interventionist foreign policy as advocated by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and believes costly undeclared wars and the occupation of other countries only serves to weaken our national defense and strengthen the resolve along with the ranks of our enemies.

According to an article from The Associated Press, “Guantanamo [is] a political win GOP needed.” The story is referencing the vote in the Senate that occurred earlier today. In a vote of 90 to 6, the Senate overwhelmingly opposed President Obama’s effort to close the prison that harbors accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Every Republican member of the Senate passed on the opportunity to recognize that terrorist combatants do have Constitutional rights and that protections of the Bill of Rights apply to all persons under the jurisdiction of the U.S. regardless of where in the world that jurisdiction prevails.

As you know, one of Barack Obama’s first acts as president was to order the closing of the controversial prison for terrorist suspects within a year. Obama had campaigned on the issue, but Republicans pounced on what they correctly asserted to be a critical flaw: the lack of detailed plans for where the roughly 240 detainees would go if the Cuban prison were shut down.

On that point, the town of Hardin, Montana (pop. 3,400) has volunteered to house 40% of the detainees (about 100 of them) in a state prison facility that is vacant.

Greg Smith, Economic Development Director in Hardin, says that there are 464 beds in the facility and over 120 jobs could be created by moving those prisoners to Hardin.  With flat land, a state-of-the-art corrections facility, and a Mayor (and City Council) willing to house the suspects, all it would have taken was a simple Senate vote in favor of closing Gitmo.

That vote, however, would require Senators to have a backbone and LEAD the country — something foreign to them.  Only six Senators, all from the far left wing of the Democrat Party, had the courage to vote in favor of the funding to move the captives to U.S. soil.

Why should we house these accused terrorists in the U.S.? The fact is that housing them in Gitmo has denied the terrorist suspects their constitutional rights and there is simply no possibility that piecemeal changes in law could create a legal system at Guantanamo equal to the U.S. criminal justice or courts martial systems.

Additionally, the detentions of the terrorist suspects are only temporary expedients that apply only in the field of combat according to U.S. law. Since we’re not at war with Cuba, the legitimate idea of temporarily detaining combatants in a war zone does not apply.

According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the abuses at Guantanamo Bay carried out at the beckon call of high-level government officials include widespread abuse:

• solitary confinement of detainees for periods exceeding a year;
• sleep deprivation of detainees for days, weeks, or months;
• exposure of detainees to prolonged temperature extremes;
• beatings of detainees;
• threats of transfer to a foreign country for torture;
• torture in foreign countries or at U.S. military bases abroad before transfer to Guantánamo;
• sexual harassment and rape or threat of rape against detainees;
• deprivation of medical treatment for serious conditions, or treatment granted only for “cooperating”; and
• “short-shackling,” where wrists and ankles are bound together and to the floor for hours or day.

I realize these suspects are accused of being terrorists and several of them were involved in the 911 attacks. I have tremendous sympathy for victims (and their families) of these accused terrorists and am quite convinced that the detainees at Gitmo are quite literally the scum of the earth.

That said, those accused of crimes in a nation governed by the rule of law are entitled to equal treatment under the law and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment as well as protection from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives are entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment includes “… nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …”.  Further, the Eighth Amendment guarantees freedom from “cruel and unusual punishment” by government.

In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote that “[t]here are … four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is ‘cruel and unusual’.” They include:

- The “essential predicate” is “that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,” especially torture.
- “A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.”
- “A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.”
- “A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.”

The torture procedures that the Bush Administration, the Republicans in Congress, and the spineless Democrats who purport to be civil libertarians have gone along with violate constitutional protections and are clearly ‘cruel and unusual’ tactics under the definition of the U.S. Supreme Court.  The types of torture that have been used against suspected terrorists also violate the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture (both signed by the U.S.).

Moreover, the techniques are not effective. According to the U.S. Army Interrogation Field Manuel 34-52 (1992), “Use of torture and other illegal methods is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

And according to the Center for Constitutional Rights,

“If someone has information, they are just as likely, if not more so, to disclose the information after non-abusive interrogation tactics. Second, many who are interrogated do not have information to give. Third, whether or not a person has information, he or she will likely confess to anything to stop torture; thus the information obtained is never reliable.”

Quoth the AP article: “Republicans have searched mightily for a good political issue this year as their traditional three Gs — gays, guns and God — have lost some steam. Now a fourth G — Guantanamo Bay — is handing them big boost.”

The issue of Guantanamo may be giving Republicans a boost in popular support, but it is at the sacrifice of the U.S. Constitution and a respect for the rule of law.

Over the last eight years, the Bush Administration has systematically dismantled some of the most important rights and protections of the United States Constitution.

The time to stand up for the Constitution is NOW.  Americans oppose the Bush-Cheney torture policies and a free nation based on the rule of law requires more of its government and its elected officials.

Senator Jim DeMint has an impressive record in the Senate. The Junior Senator from South Carolina’s main work since his election in 2005 has centered on opposing the increase of federal government spending, both under the Bush and Obama Administrations. He has been particularly hostile to bailouts for banks and other corporations. DeMint is also a vocal proponent of Right to Work laws and, as such, opposes the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that would strip workers of secret ballot elections.

However, DeMint leaves much to be desired on social issues. According to the Charleston City Paper, “DeMint’s office has reasserted his commitment to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.” DeMint’s position is not particularly popular: only a small majority (54%) of gay marriage opponents favor amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage, according to a 2006 survey.

Opines the paper: “DeMint’s strong support for states rights, while also seeking federal involvement on gay marriage may be indicative of a larger struggle between the religious and libertarian elements of the Republican Party as it rebrands itself.”

So just like the Democrats, DeMint simply picks and chooses what issues he wants government to take an activist role in.

Gay marriage is just the most recent example of the social conservatives’ war on individual choice. And it is but one example of some social conservatives’ interest in nationalizing issues that should not be decided by the federal government.

A 2006 survey of 2,003 adults found that 55% prefer that abortion laws be decided at the national level rather than each state deciding for itself. This desire for a national policy prescription extends to other social issues, too. Despite growing antipathy toward Congress and low levels of trust in the federal government generally, majorities or pluralities also favored a national (rather than state-by-state) approach to policymaking on stem cell research, gay marriage and whether creationism should be taught in the schools along with evolution.

It isn’t just abortion and gay marriage where social conservatives want government to intervene.  In 2006, the Family Research Council surveyed its members on immigration, and, by a ratio of 9 to 1, they believe illegal immigrants should be “detected, arrested and returned to their country of origin.”

I’m not saying that illegal immigration should be tolerated (it shouldn’t be) — although Congress has tolerated it for decades.

But a rational approach to the issue does not entail rounding up millions of people and sending them away.

A Pew poll from 2006, cited by the San Francisco Chronicle, found that two-thirds of white evangelicals consider new immigrants to be a burden and a threat to American culture.  The poll didn’t even include the word ‘illegal’.

Some evangelicals seem to have massive problem with gays and immigrants — and they think the government can (and should) solve their concerns.

How about foreign policy?

Surely the religious right doesn’t want government to intervene there, right?

Unfortunately, that isn’t the case.  In fact, it was with the blessing of many social conservatives who supported unwavering authority for the Bush Administration’s War in Iraq, detaining terrorist suspects without due process rights, and torture policies.

This despite the fact that Christian Just War Theory stresses necessary cause, right intention, last report, and legitimate authority when governments wage a war. And the fact that the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war powers.

Yet the small (quiet) group of Christian evangelicals who questioned the Bush Administration’s policies on Iraq and waterboarding were labeled unpatriotic, anti-American, and bad Christians.

Voltaire once said, “Of all religions, Christianity is without a doubt the one that should inspire tolerance the most.”  Many Christians have been tolerant of others, and a few social conservatives have been able to align with libertarians via the Ron Paul movement.

Those Christians have stayed true to their principles while recognizing that government is not the solution to these complex social problems that plague society.  They need to wake up their socially conservative, evangelical brethren to the fact that using government as a tool of social coercion is unethical–indeed, anti-religious.

“I never will by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance,” said Thomas Jefferson.

Social conservatives need to practice a bit more tolerance and wake up to the fact that asking government to solve these social dilemmas is no different than activists on the left asking government for handouts.

And no different than giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

According to Politico, Congressman Ron Paul calls on Congress to consider using letters of marque and reprisal to fend off the growing piracy movement that has captivated national attention over the last weeks. Letters of marque and reprisal, a power written into the Constitution that allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe, serve as official warrants from the government to allow privateers to seize or destroy enemies in exchange for bounty money.

Days after September 11, 2009, Dr. Paul introduced legislation allowing President Bush to permit private citizens to go after Osama bin Laden and other identified terrorists and put a bounty price on the heads of targets responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Contractors would also be required to post a play-by-the-rules bond and turn over any terrorists — and their seized property —to U.S. authorities.

According to Paul, “The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy … [and] once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man.”

According to Newsmax, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), who is retiring in January 2011, has called for President-elect Obama to fire CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden. Hoekstra is currently a ranking member on the House Permanent Select committee on intelligence.

Hoekstra blasted Hayden for keeping secrets from Congress and the American people. According to Hoekstra: “[Hayden has a] military way of doing things. They like to keep all of the problems within them and say, don’t worry, we’ll deal with it. What you’re seeing here is just a continuing pattern of the intel community being shaped in the model of the military. And I think that’s just wrong.”

“The intelligence community [has] people with a tremendous amount of power who abuse it, and the end result is Americans dying. It can’t get any uglier than that,” he said.

“Once again, this whole community is going to be run by the military. I just think that’s a huge mistake,” Hoekstra told Newsmax. “These guys are very talented, but they approach it in a very different way in regards to accountability and these kinds of things than a civilian might do.”

Of particular concern to Hoeksta was the way Gen. Hayden and CIA have handled the investigation of the April 2001 shoot-down of a single-engine Cessna over the Amazon River in Peru.

“Innocent Americans died, and they didn’t have to, because of a CIA that has a history of operating outside the rules and not being held accountable. I think a civilian would have responded very differently from how Mike Hayden has responded. I think it’s going to be a cover–I think it’s going to be a whitewash,” concluded Hoekstra.

As Matt Welch explains in the Reason blog, Bill Kristol, the modern spokesman for neo-conservatism, whose own father was the intellectual origination of neo-conservatism, is warning the Republican Party about the threat of limited government. Says Kristol:

[C]onservatives should think twice before charging into battle against Obama under the banner of "small-government conservatism." It's a banner many Republicans and conservatives have rediscovered since the election and have been waving around energetically. Jeb Bush, now considering a Senate run in 2010, even went so far as to tell Politico last month, "There should not be such a thing as a big-government Republican."

Kristol has had his wishes granted under the Bush Administration. Which of his policies has succeeded?

Writes Huffington Post, “Three months before she was thrust into the national political spotlight, Gov. Sarah Palin was asked to handle a much smaller task: addressing the graduating class of commission students at her one-time church, Wasilla Assembly of God. Her speech in June provides as much insight into her policy leanings as anything uncovered since she was asked to be John McCain’s running mate:

Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord. “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

According to Politico, Tucker Eskew, a Bush-Cheney campaign veteran, will serve as a counselor to the Alaska governor, whose introduction as McCain’s running mate has jolted the presidential race. Eskew has been tasked with getting Palin briefed on domestic and foreign policy issues and advising her on her stump speech[es] on the road.

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Georgia, it has not been highlighted enough that U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL, sort of) was the sponsor of the April 28 House resolution which started the process of inviting Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO. Rep. Wexler should not get a free pass for this. When you recall that Article 5 of the NATO charter states that an attack on one member of the NATO alliance is considered an attack on all, you can see how dangerous and foolhardy this rush to expand NATO is.

While the U.S. nears a depression, there have been loud voices calling for U.S. intervention in the conflict between Russia and Georgia. The primary voices for intervention come from the neo-con camp, the same chosen few who led the U.S. intervention in Iraq.

The conflict between Russia and Georgia has arisen over a region known as South Ossetia. Various international bodies recognize the region as Georgian territory, however a referendum of South Ossetian residents in November 2006 confirmed that a majority of the residents — indeed, 99% — favor independence (with 95% voter turnout).

At Antiwar.com, Pat Buchanan explains the American hypocrisy in the situation. As he explains, “[the neo-cons] have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin’s birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.” According to The Seattle Times, earlier this summer Putin warned George W. Bush that the U.S. pushing for Georgian NATO membership was going too far.

The Times reports that Vice President Dick Cheney and his aides and allies, who view Georgia as a model for their democracy promotion campaign, pushed to sell Georgia more arms, including Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, so that it could defend itself against possible Russian aggression.

“Putin, angry at what he saw as U.S. infringement in his backyard, decided Georgia was the line in the sand the West would not be allowed to cross,” says the Times.

But, in the end, what the U.S. media does not report is that it was the Georgians who were the aggressors. As The Guardian reports, “Many had traveled in their nightclothes on rocky roads through the mountains and gave bloodcurdling accounts of Georgian atrocities. ‘I came in the boot of a car. Georgian snipers were firing at us from the forest. My brother stayed to fight. Our grandparents’ home was reduced to rubble. We don’t know where they are. Nothing is left of their village. It was totally destroyed by rockets and tank fire,’ Alisa Mamiyeva, 26, a teacher in Tskhinvali, said from the safety of Vladikavkaz in North Ossetia.” Justin Raimondo further details how the U.S. media has covered up the truth with propaganda.

Long story short, the U.S. should not involve itself in this conflict. The RLC supports military deployment in cases where there “is a clear threat to vital U.S. interests and only with the consent of the U.S. Congress.” The U.S. should get back to its own interests, not those of bastions of democracy, such as Georgia — which is really the aggressor in the conflict over South Ossetia.