On June 22nd, I attended an event at a local Islamic school featuring former U.S. Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford and US Congressman Gary Peters (thankfully no relation). The event was awkwardly promoted as a "Town Hall Meeting," to discuss "The Syrian Revolution."

The event was choreographed to advance the US agenda for regime change in Syria and the audience appropriately reflected this bias. There was no attempt to present the various positions within or outside of Syria. Mr. Ford's and Congressman Peters' speeches were preceded by a five minute propaganda video complete with footage from CNN's fraudulent u2018Syrian Danny.'

It was clear that Mr. Ford sees himself as a modern day Lawrence — an Anglo scholar whose role is to unite and lead those opposed to the Assad regime. It was also apparent that Ford harbors a personal animis for President Bashar Assad. After all, it was Assad who sent Ford packing in disgrace from Syria for his departure from ambassadorial norms in actively encouraging violent revolution within Syria. Ford declared that "We will not stop until Bashar Assad is gone!" Neither Ford nor Peters specified who "we" is. Ford spent the evening ingratiating himself with the audience of conservative Sunni Muslims, at one point announcing that he did not care how Assad left, including being found dead in a sewer pipe like Qaddafi. U.S. diplomatic speak in 2012?

Ford faced no serious challenges from the audience. It was a mutual admiration society. The toughest question Ford faced was whether the US should send lethal weapons to Islamic rebels or just attack Syria itself. While bemoaning the killing in Syria, Ford proudly admitted that the US is acquiescing in the supply of weapons to rebels through Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other beacons of democracy.

I pointed out to Ford and Peters that there was no constitutional authority for their personal campaign of regime change in another country. I asked them why Bashar Assad could not make the same argument for the Obama Administration in light of Obama's low approval rating, the pathetic economic condition the nation was in and the degradation of rights and liberties. I asked Ford and Peters how the Obama administration would react if other countries were funneling weapons into the US to be used by revolutionary groups to set off car bombs in the nation's capital or assassinate public officials. In response to their argument that Assad is killing his own people, I pointed out that Lincoln was responsible for the deaths of 600,000 Americans, yet we have built a memorial to him in our nation's capital, placed him on our currency and dedicated a national holiday to the man.

My question prompted an angry uproar from the partisan crowd complete with shout downs and threats. The moderator implored the angry gathering to demonstrate democratic principles by allowing me to be heard "even if his questions are stupid." I awaited Ford's response as the stirring crowd settled. Predictably, Ford ignored the issue of constitutional authority and justified administration actions based upon "international law." I did not have a chance to follow up due to the ire of the crowd and the moderator's open bias. I would have asked Ford why, if international law is preeminent, the US has exempted itself from multiple international conventions, including the international criminal court. I would also have asked what part of international law allows the administration to target foreign leaders and engage in the assassination of US citizens abroad. Nevertheless, the point was made. This administration sees the constitution as a subordinate document to international protocols. Neither the constitution nor the American people will determine our Syrian policy. Ford cannot be bothered with such trivialities. He has a world to change along with Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice.

The evening ended with myself and others being warned to leave for our own safety and we did. This was the face of the nascent Syrian u2018democracy' which the Obama administration is willing to promote whether or not the policy is supported by the American or Syrian people. The evening was pure theatre. The only question was whether it was comedy or tragedy.

John M. Peters [send him mail] is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

The Best of John M. Peters

Less
jobs = less income and less income = less income tax. Nothing will
reduce the size of government faster than the absence of revenue.
Regardless of how ambitious the government is in its central planning,
all plans will require money to carry them out. Having borrowed
to the hilt to finance its current excesses, government will soon
find itself unable to borrow any more. This leaves only taxes to
fund the machine. Once that runs out government will have to shrink
to stay alive.

Whether
cash becomes less available or simply less valuable there will be
a return to the system of barter and exchange. Barter involves trading
services for services, goods for goods, services for goods and goods
for services. Barter will also result in less income tax being reported
and less income tax being paid, ergo, smaller government. Then there
is the added social benefit of people reconnecting with people.
Nothing will bring people together like some good old-fashioned
bartering. The barter method will also force people to hone their
product knowledge, and negotiating and salesmanship skills, boosting
real competition in the marketplace.

As credit ratings
are dashed and the new economy becomes increasingly localized, expect
a return to the old-fashioned practice of reference checking. Yes,
reference checking. If you want to borrow money or obtain credit
the person you are dealing with will ask for the names and phone
numbers of several individuals with whom you have been dealing for
a period of years. Then they will actually pick up the telephone
and call your references to find out just how trustworthy you really
are. This will have the added benefit of providing incentive for
people to deal honestly and fairly with others, lest your references
throw you under the bus. Forget Equifax, TRW and Experian. Words
will speak louder than data bases to those really interested in
what type of person you are.

With
people unable to secure loans for the purchase of real estate, even
at reduced prices, expect the re-emergence of the land contract.
This instrument was utilized commonly in the early 1980′s era of
runaway interest rates. A land contract is an instrument for seller
financing of a real estate transaction. The purchaser pays according
to any schedule mutually agreeable between the seller and purchaser.
It can include very low monthly payments with a balloon payment
at the end of the contract term, a modest down payment with evenly
amortized payments or any variation thereof. Unlike a mortgage the
land contract is fully negotiable. Also unlike a mortgage, the seller
retains title to the property until the land contract is paid in
full. This is the ultimate in security. If the purchaser defaults,
the Seller retains all payments made and is able to resell the property.
This process eliminates the need for banks, credit reporting agencies
or mortgage companies, puts into play the personal reference mechanism
and allows for bartering as well.

How about that
home garden? As commodity prices continue to rise in the coming
inflationary spiral more people will be growing their own food.
Some people never abandoned the practice, but now those who have
no extra "cabbage" to throw around at the upscale produce
market will find that they can harvest fruits and vegetables right
in their own backyards. Jim Rogers recommends that people who are
out of work learn to drive tractors. According to Rogers, the economy
has produced fewer farmers every decade and there has been little
investment in the agricultural sector. When you grow your own produce
you will control what went into it or on it. No need for government
mandated labeling, inspections and warnings or the neglect thereof.

DIGG THIS

This
week’s Congressional hearings with top executives from America’s
collapsing auto industry were noted for the manner in which the
politicians took the auto execs to task for their personal excesses.

Even though
I live in the Detroit area and am already experiencing the nuclear
effect of the collapsing economy, I am completely opposed to the
proposed bailout for reason consistent with my Libertarian views.
There are few examples of poorer management than those of the former
"big three." It is not government’s place to extend a
U.S. taxpayer’s credit card to these companies as a consequence
of their own irresponsible business practices.

However,
Congress seeking to shame auto execs over financial excess or poor
management practice is the very definition of irony. This is the
same public body that daily sets about to regulate every aspect
of our private affairs always with disastrous consequences. Among
its ranks sit some of the sleaziest operators you could ever find.
Alaska Senator Ted Stevens is the latest poster child, convicted
on seven felony counts for corruption.

Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman auditioning for national media
attention, smugly asked
the auto executives if any had flown commercial to Washington,
DC. Maybe the auto executives decided not to fly commercial because
they would not have arrived in time in light of the Draconian measures
employed by the Congressionally created Department of Homeland Security
and the unreliability of commercial airlines which continue to suffer
the effects of federal regulation.

Sherman’s
next question was whether any of these executives planned to sell
"their" corporate jets while in DC and
fly home commercial. Sherman’s question displays gratuitous
sarcasm and ignorance over the fact that the jets are owned by the
shareholders not the executives. How many of Sherman’s fellow Congressmen
are shareholders in these same automotive companies? Perhaps Sherman
should address his question to the next shareholders’ meeting instead.

The
Congressional pork-and-graft cycle is so well established that it
is as much a part of American history as the Revolution itself.
How many junkets have Mr. Sherman and his cohorts taken at the expense
of the taxpayer? Auto executives’ salaries and benefits, including
travel on corporate jets, are financed with private capital voluntarily
invested and subject to approval by shareholders and boards of directors.
Congress lives parasitically on public funds extracted by force
from private citizens and subject only to their own whim. The lavish
benefits and retirement plans Congress has voted for its members
make even bloated UAW benefits pale by comparison. What private
enterprise provides a pension at full salary for life?

The
implication of Sherman’s questioning is that those in charge of
the auto companies have played fast and loose with company money
while the companies were losing money and the executives continue
to make no sacrifices. Yet, Congress takes no personal responsibility
for years of irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies by which
the federal government has plunged the nation into the worst economic
disaster in modern times. While publicly grandstanding about their
concern for Main Street, Congress voted to turn $700 billion of
Main Street’s dollars over to Wall Street in defiance of overwhelming
opposition from their constituents. Then they proceeded to lace
the bill with more pork than Jimmy Dean and Bob Evans combined.
By the way Mr. Sherman, what pay cuts did you or your fellow politicians
take to show solidarity with Main Street? Yeah, I thought so.

Then
there is my favorite quote by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. “Until
we can see a plan where the auto industry is held accountable and
a plan for viability on how they go into the future . . . until
they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money,” Maybe
it is time we held Congress to this standard. Ms. Pelosi, until
the American taxpayer can see a plan where Congress is held accountable
and a plan for viability on how Congress will operate in the future…until
Congress shows the American taxpayer the plan, we cannot show you
the money.

November
22, 2008

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

DIGG THIS

"The
government’s top economic experts warn that, without immediate
action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic
and a distressing scenario would unfold. More banks could fail,
including some in your community. The stock market would drop
even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account.
The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise
dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find
it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would
close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their
jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult
for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children
to college. And, ultimately, our country could experience a long
and painful recession."

~
President George W. Bush, September 24, 2008

"The
whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

~
H.L. Mencken

The
urge to compare the current financial crisis to the Great Depression
has proven irresistible. Pundits, economists and investment gurus
have all invoked its specter. However, this time in a bit of role
reversal it is Uncle Sam with the tin cup in hand asking taxpayers,
"Buddy can you lend me…700 billion?" Actually,
Uncle Sam does not want your money, he just wants to help out his
buddies on Walls Street. Gee, what a guy!

To
Sam’s amazement, those hearing his plea have turned him down flat.
This has included a host of foreign governments who evaluate Sam
as a lousy credit risk. So Sam’s begging has turned to threats.
No more Mr. Nice Guy! Taxpayers would surrender or face certain
disaster. Congress would ignore its constituents and approve the
package or else. What began as a recommendation quickly morphed
into a threat. It was Eco (as in economic) terrorism by the government,
which included hostage taking. As the week progressed and it was
becoming increasingly clear that the government’s latest scam was
not selling well on Main Street, the doom-and-gloom forecasting
was increased. President Bush was trotted out before a public which
had largely forgotten about him.

Like
the boy who cried wolf, Bush used dire predictions in hopes of reversing
public opposition to the bailout package. We had heard it all before.
If we did not authorize him to invade Iraq we could all perish within
45 minutes. If we did not surrender our rights through the Patriot
Act we would be overcome by Muslim hoards. Now we would all be living
in the streets if we did not authorize Uncle Sam to spend $700 billion
to reward bad business practices on Wall Street. The fear ploy went
over like a lead balloon. It had been used once too often. So, the
government began "offing" its hostages to enforce the
President’s threat. WAMU was "taken out" by federal regulators
Friday morning. The point of the gesture was unmistakable. The longer
Congress refused Sam’s demand for the loot the more "hostages"
would be executed.

As
of Friday the stand-off continued. The hostage negotiating team
of McCain and Obama volunteered their services but were politely
asked to butt out by those who saw their offer as a ploy to move
their sorry campaigns back to the front pages.

The
game of grand theft taxpayer will continue. It ends when Congress
fulfills its constituents’ determination to defeat the crime by
ignoring the fear-mongering and threats in favor of honoring the
Constitution and establishing sound fiscal policy.

September
29, 2008

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

DIGG THIS

I
was born in Detroit in 1954. It was the year Detroit’s population
peaked at just under 2 million and made Detroit the nation’s 4th
largest city. Most Detroiters were white, gainfully employed and
educated. The automobile industry was experiencing full employment
and wages and benefits were among the best in the nation. Automotive
success supported a myriad of other businesses from construction
to retail to recreation. There was comparatively little crime. My
father who survived 30 missions as a navigator on a B-24 bomber
was free of Korean military service, and was busy building his practice
as a certified public accountant. We had clean clothes and my mother
put three square meals on the table daily. We ate real butter, whole
milk, fatty beef and lots of sugar. We played in the streets all
day, ventured miles from our home without a cell phone or parental
oversight, and rode bikes without helmets. The Twin Pines truck
would arrive in our driveway and place a delivery of cold glass
milk bottles with cardboard caps into our milk chute. I laughed
at Soupy
Sales, Milky The Clown and the Three Stooges on one of the four
channels our TV featured. Changing it required getting off the couch
and turning a knob. On occasion you had to turn the rabbit ears
to eliminate "snow." We never had our Halloween candy
x-rayed. My parents drove exquisitely large chariots of two-toned
steel with huge tail fins and no seatbelts. Life was good in my
Detroit.

Black
Detroiters — then referred to as Negroes, coloreds or worse — no
doubt have less idyllic memories of those days in Detroit. Detroit
in the 50′s was a firmly segregated city. Like the TV’s of the time
Detroit was black and white. We rarely saw "negroes," except for
those who took the bus to come clean neighborhood homes or work
in car washes. My only direct contact was with our handyman, Jimmy
Wilson. As a young boy I had no idea how or where Jimmy lived. I
only knew him as a soft-spoken older guy who did great work, told
great stories over a cool drink with us and always had a smile.
If there was trouble brewing between the races I never knew it from
Jimmy.

In
the 60′s Detroit felt the same wave of change that was sweeping
the nation. Still, life in my Detroit was everything a young boy
could ask for even while sharing a bedroom with my two brothers.
One day, I met two boys about my age while out riding bikes with
my friend. They were not from my neighborhood. I knew because they
were not my color. They asked if they could use our bikes to race
each other. They took off swiftly and were never seen again — neither
were our bikes. My father was furious with me for trusting two colored
boys with my new bike. A white police officer who came to our home
to take a stolen property report warned my parents, "They’ll
take anything that isn’t nailed down." It was my first lesson
about the Detroit I did not live in and the end of my Leave-It-To-Beaver
world.

We
always went into downtown Detroit for special occasions like birthday
dinners, premier movies, and the Detroit Tigers or Lions games at
Tiger Stadium. There were local traditions like the Thanksgiving
Day parade and breakfast with Santa at J.L. Hudson’s department
store. On trips downtown we would encounter "coloreds" working as
vendors at the ballgames, elevator operators at JL Hudsons or cleaning
up tables at the best restaurants. I never thought twice about the
order of things. Downtown was where everyone went if they were lucky.
It was where things were happening and where the streets were full
of people busy enjoying city life. City busses travelled electrically,
with huge antennae that were connected to a system of overhead wires.
The Ambassador Bridge and the Windsor tunnel connected Detroit to
Canada just across the Detroit River. In 1962, my father took us
to the foot of the river to join the crowds gawking at the site
of the British freighter Montrose which had sunk just beneath
the bridge. Good or bad, it seemed that everything worth seeing
happened downtown.

The
nuns and teachers at my Catholic grade school were in tears and
we were all sent home from school early. It was November 22, 1963.
Three days later I returned from church to see a replay of Jack
Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald on TV. Life was about to change.

In
1965 my father convinced my mother to consider a larger home in
a suburb of Detroit. My father had the house built in 1965 and we
moved in on my birthday in 1966. I had my own room, but it felt
strange to me. The homes were spread out and everything seemed so
far away. We had no milk chute. What was this? I always wanted to
return to the city to see old friends and visit familiar environs,
but I was consigned to suburban life. My parents wanted to settle
into their new neighborhood and I was not old enough to drive.

One
year later while we were enjoying a vacation on Mackinac Island
between the upper and lower peninsulas of Michigan we awoke to news
that a riot had broken out in Detroit. On our ride home we passed
convoys of military vehicles headed into the city. From the safety
of our new suburban home we watched coverage of the riot on TV.
Color had come to TV and to Detroit. 43 people died, almost 1,200
were injured and 7,000 were arrested. Property damage, fires and
looting were widespread. Tanks
and soldiers patrolled the streets with orders to shoot to kill.
City busses were converted into makeshift jails. What happened to
the city I grew up in so happily? People were stunned, like victims
of a natural disaster who had no idea it was coming. Many would
say that Detroiters should have seen the handwriting on the wall.
In 1943 another race riot took 34 lives in just 36 hours and saw
1,800 arrested. Could the riot be considered the cause of Detroit’s
problems or was it simply the ultimate manifestation of them? Regardless
of one’s answer the riot of ’67 would transform Detroit forever.

In
1968, the Detroit Tigers won the World Series with black players
and white players working together. The entire city celebrated openly
and for a moment forgot the horror that it had experienced a year
and a half before, but only for a moment.

White
flight, as it was called, continued unabated. Nobody had forgotten
the riot of 1967. Block busting was a real estate practice in which
Realtors would convince a white homeowner to sell their home to
a black family in an otherwise all white neighborhood. When other
whites learned that a colored family was moving into their neighborhood
they began selling their own homes in panic and at reduced prices.
"Coloreds" became Afro-Americans and "black power" became a slogan
hopeful to some and feared by others. Downtown had become a ghost
town after dark. Store fronts were covered with heavy steel grates
and padlocked. You could fire cannons up Woodward Avenue at night
and never hit anyone.

The
70′s saw Detroit’s population continue to drop. In addition, those
left in the city were less skilled, less educated and less affluent.
Those who could leave were leaving taking capital, investments and
opportunities with them. Gasoline was 19 cents per gallon and cars
were thirstier than ever. The suburbs continued to grow with malls
popping up like vegetable gardens. Detroit’s police chief was a
white man with a brush cut named John Nichols. Chief Nichols implemented
a unit called STRESS, an acronym for stop-robberies-enjoy-safe-streets.
African-Americans saw Nichols as the embodiment of racism and STRESS
as more of a description of what his police department was causing
them. Nationally, this was the era of the so-called black-sploitation
films in which white police officers gunned down angry African-American
males in city streets. In a case of life imitating art, Detroit
police officers engaged in one of the largest manhunts in city history
in 1973 following a string of killings of white Detroit police officers
by African-American men.

It
was also the era of the muscle car. Perhaps more than anything else,
the muscle car came to symbolize 70′s Detroit. In a city which was
divided racially and struggling economically the muscle car gave
the appearance of power in stark contrast to the condition of the
city which was churning them out. Yet, the hangover of the 1967
riot lingered and the city seemed mired in a malaise with no real
direction forward.

In
1973 Detroit elected it first black mayor. Coleman A. Young was
the pride of African-American Detroiters and the scorn of whites
living just outside of the city who still considered Detroit part
of their birthright. Young defeated Chief Nichols in a clear choice
of white establishment versus African American political assertiveness.
Brash and outspoken, Young never missed an opportunity to lock horns
with white establishment figures. He had a penchant for blaming
whites for every problem which had befallen Detroit. It may have
been ego or idol worship, but the Detroit Zoo — actually located
in suburban Royal Oak — the Detroit City County Building and a city
airport would all be renamed after Coleman A. Young. Many blame
Young’s twenty year legacy as Mayor of Detroit for the further polarization
between black and white Detroiters and the steady decline of the
city itself.

After
years away from the city, I spent 1973 to 1980 attending college
and law school in Detroit. It was my first prolonged exposure to
the city in ten years. The University of Detroit Law School has
occupied its position on Jefferson Avenue just across from the Detroit
riverfront since 1927. I was in the city on a daily basis and spent
my leisure time enjoying the restaurants and night life the city
had to offer. As young students we were eager to see Detroit in
the most positive of lights, but the sad condition of the city was
always evident. We were too busy studying for exams and partying
to realize that one day some of us would become major contributors
to the city’s future. I took a job clerking for a downtown law firm.
My situation was typical of many white Detroiters. I studied in
the city, I worked in the city and I partied in the city, but I
lived outside of the city. It was not just whites who were abandoning
the city. Throughout the 80′s, successful black Detroiters also
joined the caravan north away from the city limits. The city’s tax
base continued to decline and crime was on the rise.

One
could blame those who abandoned the city or one could support their
decision. The fact was that faced with the Herculean task of turning
the city around or pulling up stakes and moving into communities
which were safer, more modern and with greater amenities, most people
followed the latter course. Detroit has suburbs which will stand
with any community in the country for quality of life. Yet, those
who left Detroit were always uneasy about leaving their city behind.

In
the 80′s an odd cultism sprang up. Desperate to have their city
number one in something, Detroiters took pride in its bad-ass reputation.
T-shirts touted, I Survived a Weekend in Detroit. and I’m
So Bad I Vacation in Detroit. The 80′s championship Piston teams
were nicknamed the Bad Boys and had an emblem consisting of skull
and crossbones. The 1984 movie Beverly
Hills Cop contrasted a violent and seedy Detroit with the
wealthy and idyllic Beverly Hills, California. The 1987 film RoboCop
featured a futuristic Detroit reduced to a virtual wasteland ruled
by criminal gangs. Detroit reigned as Murder Capital USA, throughout
the 80′s, holding the dubious title more than once.

In 1987 Detroit
dedicated a sculpture to native son and heavyweight champion, Joe
Louis. It sits in a plaza across from the Detroit City County Building
on the riverfront. The bronze sculpture is a fist on the end of
a severed arm. For whites the sculpture typified everything they
despised about Mayor Young, even though Young did not design the
sculpture. The fist was seen as a tasteless embodiment of the black
power symbol and a disgrace to Joe Louis. To other Detroiters —
black and white — it was just plain ugly. The City also debuted
the unimaginatively named People Mover in 1987. The elevated public
transit train was over budget, covers a small 2.9-mile loop through
the central business district and operates at a loss; 85% of the
operating cost is subsidized from the shrinking Detroit city budget.

Throughout
the decades I have watched the parade of Detroit institutions leaving
the city. The Bob-Lo Boat, Vernor’s Ginger Ale, the Stroh Brewery,
Awrey Bakery, Sanders Candy, The London Chop House, Lelli’s, Chrysler
Corporation, the Detroit Lions and the Detroit Pistons just to name
a few.

When
I was a boy growing up on Detroit’s northwest side, Devil’s Night
meant soaping windows, egging houses and ringing doorbells. In the
modern era Devil’s Night in Detroit has become known nationally
for its orgy of arson fires, 840 of them on Devil’s Night 1984.
The annual total has since been cut substantially. In 1996, 33,615
city residents answered Mayor Dennis Archer’s call
for citizen volunteers to help patrol neighborhoods on Devil’s
Night. Arsons were reduced to a still staggering 142, virtually
the lowest they have ever been before or since. In the early 90′s
while visiting a friend in Los Angeles, I was speaking with a corny
lounge singer in an eclectic LA club known as The Dresden. He learned
that I was on vacation and asked where I was from. When I told him
Detroit, he responded: "Detroit? That town is closed!"
It was funny at the time, but not too far from the truth.

One
day while driving into the city I decided to drive by my childhood
home. The neighborhood had declined, but my old house was holding
its own and even had new landscaping. I decided I would ring the
bell and introduce myself. The front door had security bars and
for a moment I thought that I may have made the largest error in
judgment of my life. A man resembling Joe Frazier answered the door,
a large dog at his side. I explained that I grew up in the house,
was driving by and was curious about the house. After putting his
dog away the man returned. "Come on in," he invited, and
I did. We introduced ourselves, shook hands, then retired to the
kitchen and had a long visit over a cool drink. Mike was curious
about the history of the home after learning that my father had
the home built in 1947. It all seemed very familiar, although the
milk chute of my youth had been welded shut in another sign of the
times. We talked about life in the city. Mike let me know I was
welcome back anytime.

Several
attempts have been made in the last two decades to revive downtown
Detroit. It began with the 12 million dollar restoration of the
Fox Theatre in 1988, an architectural wonder dating back to 1928.
A member of my law school class was in charge of that project. Ten
years later a Detroit landmark, the 28 story JL
Hudson Department Store, which had been closed since 1983, was
demolished in a controlled explosion to make way for the new Campus
Martius development. There was the opening of Comerica
Park for the Detroit Tigers in 2000 and Ford
Field as the new home of the Detroit Lions who moved back into
Detroit in 2002.

I
had lunch with a good friend from law school the week before opening
day at Comerica Park. She had been in charge of the development
and expressed concern about how it would be received by Detroiters.
I advised her not to worry since there was nothing she could do
about it now and pointed out that while sentimentalists would cling
for some time to the nostalgic allure of Tiger Stadium new generations
would grow up in Detroit with Comerica as their ballpark. Both Ford
Field and Comerica are beautiful facilities, but they are both privately
owned operations which were subsidized with taxpayer dollars. This
was objectionable to many state residents who may never even set
foot inside of these facilities and who felt that if the owners
were truly committed to the projects they should have completed
them without any tax concessions. In the last few years Detroit
has hosted the SuperBowl, NCAA Final Four and the MLB All Star Game.

Casinos were
approved for Detroit in 1996. While producing tax revenue for an
irresponsible government in Lansing, they have not been the boon
to downtown businesses that was predicted. Casinos are not in the
business of giving away money. Moreover, Casinos make food, drink
and entertainment affordable precisely to keep customers from patronizing
the very businesses casinos were supposed to benefit. In 2007 MGM
Grand opened its permanent casino and hotel location in Detroit
at a cost of 800 million dollars. MGM boasts some of the finest
restaurants, entertainment, accommodations, spas and shops in the
city. MGM did not make this investment to boost its competition.

Also in 2007
the Detroit Riverfront
Conservancy opened the first of several phases of a planned
waterfront revival. The project has met with strong positive reviews.
Another member of my law school class serves as the President and
Chief Executive Officer of this project. She admonished me over
breakfast recently for not having been to the River Walk and insisted
upon taking me on a personal tour. We had a wide-ranging discussion
about the state of the city and its future. She implored me to be
an ambassador for the city. Neither of us knew thirty years ago
that we would be having these discussions.

In
the same year that River Walk and MGM Grand opened, I attended the
funeral of a friend’s son. My friend lives in the suburbs. Her son
was kidnapped, robbed and then executed in one of the hundreds of
abandoned homes in Detroit. Jason was white and his assailants were
black. Jason was just one of hundreds — mostly black — murdered
in the city last year. Also last year another friend of mine was
returning from a casino to his car which was parked on a downtown
street. Once inside the car he found himself facing a young
man who pointed his gun into my friend’s face and demanded that
he turn over his car. Unfortunately for this young man, my friend
was proficient with a handgun and licensed to carry one. As he opened
the door to exit his car my friend shot and killed the criminal.
The criminal’s three friends were also armed, but took flight at
the sight and sound of the shooting. They were captured by police
who came running in response to the sound of gunfire. Oh yes, the
incident took place directly across the street from Detroit Police
Headquarters in broad daylight. My friend was not charged with a
crime. In this case my friend was white and lived in the suburbs
and the dead man was black and a resident of Detroit.

That is the
other side of the Detroit story. Despite high-profile development
within the central business district much of Detroit continues to
resemble a third-world country. The absence of law and order — real
or perceived — continues to plague the city and keeps many away
from living, working or playing in Detroit. Some argue that crime
is down in all categories in the last eight years, but that ignores
the commensurate drop in population. While the actual number of
crimes may have fallen, crime
rates have actually risen.

City
schools are a disaster
both fiscally and in their educational
mission. Detroit high schools have the lowest graduation rate
in the nation. Young couples who choose to move into new city housing
and work downtown ultimately leave when their children become of
school age. The city has dozens of school
buildings sitting empty and abandoned, but the city school board
refuses to consider leasing them to parties interested in opening
them as charter schools.

The most severe aspect of city decay is the state of its residential
neighborhoods. Home to more than 1,800,000 people in 1954, Detroit’s
population has dwindled to less than 900,000 in 2008. An obvious
impact of this population drop is that the housing inventory designed
for a population of almost 2 million cannot be occupied or maintained
by a population which is 53% smaller. The result has been vast tracts
of abandoned and rotting housing which have become havens for drug
dealers, rapists, murderers and rodents, the targets of thieves
and arsonists and a drain on the city tax rolls. The city earns
no tax revenue on them and has to use city funds to have them demolished.
Worse yet, because those who had the means to leave have left, those
who have remained in the city suffer with living in the
most impoverished major city in the nation. It is not only homes
which sit empty and rotting in the city. Abandoned schools, businesses
and industrial sites also blight the landscape. A 1989 study by
the Detroit Free Press reported more than 15,000 empty buildings
in the city.
There are so many vacant lots — an estimated 40,000 — and so
few residents to occupy them that plans have been discussed to condense
the remaining populace into a contiguous area and clear the abandoned
sections. There have even been proposals to convert the empty areas
to urban
farming. Those who remain in Detroit are like survivors adrift
in a leaky lifeboat hoping to be rescued. The issue of race has
been eclipsed by the economic plight to which they have been consigned
in common.

The
old adage says that "you get the government you deserve,"
but nobody deserves the rabble that passes as Detroit City government
these days. Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick has been the subject of a string
of scandals and felony charges. It all began with a party held at
the taxpayer’s expense in the mayor’s Manoogian Mansion. Reports
of drug use and exotic dancers led to an investigation by the Detroit
Police Department. The mayor denied that the party ever took place,
while the chief of a neighboring police department said he was invited
to the party. A dancer who is believed to have performed at the
party was mysteriously gunned down in her car before she could testify.
When the investigation began closing in on the role of the mayor’s
executive protection unit — inexplicably the largest and most expensive
of any major city in the nation — in covering up a possible
extra-marital affair between Kilpatrick and his Chief of Staff,
Christine Beatty, Assistant Chief Gary Brown was suddenly demoted
and Officer Harold Nelthrope was deliberately exposed as the informant
against the executive protection officers. A subsequent lawsuit
by Brown and Nelthrope resulted in a 6 million dollar jury verdict
against Kilpatrick and the city. After interest and attorney fees
the city ultimately paid out 8.4 million dollars. During the trial
Kilpatrick and Beatty denied under oath having had a romantic relationship.
A subpoena produced records of their cellular telephone text messages
which documented a long and heated relationship. Kilpatrick and
Beatty are now facing felony charges, including perjury. While out
on bond Kilpatrick physically assaulted two Wayne County Sheriff’s
Deputies assigned to the Wayne County Prosecutor’s office when they
attempted to serve a subpoena at the home of the mayor’s relative.
The mayor was charged with additional felonies arising out that
incident, which, if sustained would also violate the conditions
of his bond in the perjury case. Apparently, violating bond does
not disturb this mayor. Despite bond conditions which restricted
his travel, the mayor precipitously departed to Canada in violation
of his bond and then lied about and concealed the trip. This is
just the mayor. City council members are under federal investigation
for accepting bribes to favor a trash-hauling vendor for a city
contract. The Detroit Police Department remains under the terms
of a consent decree with the Department of Justice as the result
of a 2003 federal
lawsuit against the city and its police department for corruption.
The consent decree gives the DOJ effective trusteeship over the
Detroit Police Department’s operations. City services such as street
lighting, rubbish removal and emergency services are brutally inefficient.
Investigative journalists for local television news regularly feature
drinking, theft and other abuses by city employees on the job.

Every
city needs a viable central business district. However, no number
of new entertainment venues will bring Detroit back unless and until
basic changes are made to improve education, reduce crime, restore
city services and establish political accountability. Some residents
criticize the central business district’s revival as being the equivalent
of putting a new Easter bonnet on a homeless woman. The required
changes will not take place without the commitment of those who
left Detroit to live in model communities just outside of the city.

Those
of us who left the city are like residents forced to flee their
home in a fire. After getting clear of the threat, they turn to
watch with angst the slow destruction of their treasured home and
hope against hope that it can be saved and rebuilt. Those who fled
will not re-enter or start the rebuilding process until the fire
is completely out even if they were responsible for causing the
fire in the first place.

Ironically,
if there is a metaphor for the city it may lie in its struggling
football team. Although the Tigers, Pistons and Red Wings have all
captured titles and given Detroiters reason to cheer in recent years
it is the Detroit Lions who arouse the strongest passions in Detroiters
of all races and economic classes. A listen to Monday morning sports
talk radio reveals there is no color barrier when it comes to the
Lions. Blacks and whites, suburbanites and city residents are equally
passionate about their football team. Detroiters curse the team
and its management for their perennial failures and chronic mediocrity,
but refuse the obvious urge to abandon their struggling Detroit
Lions. Ford Field — where a single ticket can cost several hundred
dollars — is packed every Sunday regardless of how many games the
team has lost. Detroiters celebrate each victory with pride and
see in each win a cause for optimism about the future of their team.
In the end this is exactly how Detroiters — living in the city
or outside of it — feel about their city.

August
19, 2008

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

DIGG THIS

That
is how a real estate listing for the nation’s 26th state might read
today. Michigan, once an industrial and economic giant, is among
the fastest failing states in the country. A look at how this happened
is revealing and instructive.

Michigan’s
economic destiny has traditionally been tied to the City of Detroit.
Although it is not the state capital, Detroit and automobiles are
what most people associate with Michigan. Certainly that was true
of the thousands who migrated to Michigan during the first 50 years
of the 20th century to work in the automobile plants
and related industries from which fortunes and empires were built.

From
1920 to 1940 that migration made Detroit the nation’s 4th
largest city. By 1950, Detroit’s population had peaked at nearly
2 million. However, since the 1970′s Detroit has seen its population
plummet by almost one million. Studies predict that the trend will
continue with Detroit’s population falling to 700,000 by 2035.
Some of that population drop can be explained by migration into
Detroit’s suburbs which are home to a population in excess of four
million people.

Yet, the general trend for the state has been net
population loss since 1965. Similar trends are present for Michigan
businesses and jobs. Michigan has experienced six straight years
of job loss, losing an estimated 370,000 jobs through 2008.
Michigan ranks first among all states in the percentage of unemployed
and one of every eight state residents is currently receiving food
stamps. Detroit’s foreclosure rate is almost five times the
national average with one in every eighty homes in foreclosure,
making the city first in foreclosure rates.
As of 2005 Michigan ranked 47th
in personal income growth. Numbers like this have not been seen
in Michigan since the Great Depression.

Why
are people and businesses deserting Michigan in droves? The answers
are not complex. Neither are the solutions.

FORECAST:
COLD AND CLOUDY?

Some
argue that Michigan is a victim of a younger generation shift to
Sun Belt locations. Clearly, Michigan is not a state for those who
despise winter. Heck, even our state bird — the robin — flies south
to avoid it. Yet, Chicago, with much tougher winters, continues
to thrive and attract large numbers of college graduates just across
Lake Michigan.

STATE
OF THE UNIONS

It
is economic climate more than physical climate which is driving
people away from Michigan. Michigan is a state mired in a union
past. UAW, AFSCME, AFL-CIO and the Teamsters continue to dominate
state politics and plague the private sector despite their growing
irrelevance and impediment to business development. Those who benefited
from union sway in decades past are now in denial about the changing
environment in which they and their children must survive.

LIVE
BY THE BUMPER, DIE BY THE BUMPER

Primary
among Michigan’s problems is the role of the auto industry. For
decades it was Michigan’s buffet where everyone could feed and get
fat. Fat salaries and wages, fat prices on fat cars with fat appetites
for fossil fuel. The Big Three viewed themselves as immune from
good business practice. Management never seriously challenged union
demands, opting instead to simply give in and pass the increased
costs on to consumers.

They
demanded customer loyalty by labeling any state resident who would
dare purchase a foreign car as unpatriotic. This rule was not applied
to those who bought expensive German imports, only Asian manufacturers
were considered the enemy. This despite the fact that while the
Big Three were laying off auto workers in droves and opening newer,
more competitive plants abroad, Honda and Toyota were building manufacturing
facilities in the U.S. and hiring American workers.

The
Big Three have long ignored the wave of foreign competition and
the effect of rising fuel costs. The result has been a precipitous
plunge in their sales and stock prices to the point that they are
flirting with bankruptcy.

ADRIFT
IN LANSING

Then
there is the crux of Michigan’s problems, state government. Seated
in Lansing is perhaps one of the most expensive and inept state
governments in the nation. The state budget is a disaster. Its credit
rating continues to drop.
The governor and legislature continue to entertain the delusion
that they can tax their way out of the problem while businesses
and residents continue to leave the state precisely to avoid the
current taxes. Lansing finally eliminated the despised Single Business
Tax, but instead of making a commensurate reduction in state spending
they chose to selectively impose a new sales tax on such economic
stalwarts as carpet cleaners, tanning salons and manicurists. There
was immediate opposition and the measure died a quiet death in the
state legislature. It was not unlike the outrageous grab of 2004
when the state tried to force residents to pay county real property
taxes six
months before they were due. With many owing their jobs to union
support, Lansing politicians continue to thwart legislation which
could make Michigan a competitive right-to-work state.

Exasperated state residents are now circulating petitions to take
the long overdue step of reducing
the size of Michigan government, including the state supreme
court and legislature.

So
why would anyone want to live in Michigan? There are several reasons
why Michigan’s future is bright if the political and business climates
are reformed.

Known
as "the mitten" because of its unique geographic profile,
Michigan is surrounded by the largest collection of fresh water
in the United States — the Great Lakes — and has almost one hundred
inland lakes of 1,000 acres or more dotting the state. Unlike the
increasingly popular southwest, Michigan rarely sees water rationing.
Whether it is for personal or commercial use there is always enough
fresh water to go around in Michigan. The need
for fresh water sources will continue to be a growing concern
for businesses and individuals well into the future.

The flat expanses of Michigan may be boring to pass on the interstate,
but they could be a key in the rising global demand for food and
livestock. Michigan has an immense agricultural capacity of 10
million acres producing over 200 commercial commodities, second
only to California. As the global demand for food continues
to outstrip production this capacity bodes well for Michigan.

Michigan
continues to have one of the largest pools of skilled labor in the
nation. This is a clear advantage for companies in need of a ready
work force. Skilled labor is one area where foreign competition
has not made significant inroads. However, that pool will remain
idle or disperse to other states if Lansing fails to adopt policies
which will attract employers such as transforming Michigan into
a right-to-work state.

Location
and transportation also recommend Michigan. Michigan is readily
accessible by plane, rail, interstate and ship. It shares borders
with Canada, Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana. It boasts some of the
most renowned universities and research facilities.

Michigan
is a state of incredible natural beauty, with strong tourism and
recreation traditions. Michigan has more private boat registrations
than California or Florida. Many even consider Michigan’s climate
to be a plus with four seasons, including a warm summer and a beautiful
fall. Michigan has winter, but it is devoid of the hurricanes, floods,
runaway forest fires, mud slides or earthquakes suffered by perpetually
warmer destinations. The only real disasters in Michigan have been
man-made.

The
issue is not whether Michigan has anything to offer, but rather,
how much more it could offer if state government would get out of
the way and let the market work.

August
5, 2008

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

DIGG THIS

The
bellicosity was missing, but the spirit of Col. Nathan Jessup was
alive and well at last week’s Senate Armed Services Committee’ hearing.
The purpose of the hearing was to determine the origin of policies
which legitimized the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Torture at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Yeah, Jessup was definitely there.
The hearing was spurred by revelations of previously classified
documents which confirmed that the torture of those imprisoned by
the military was not the spontaneous act of a few demented junior
enlistees. The paper trail led all the way back to the White House,
and the resulting program of abuse and torture led retired General
Antonio Taguba, who investigated similar abuses at Abu Ghraib to
conclude that the Bush Administration had engaged in "a
systematic regime of torture."

During eight
hours of questioning, various defense department personnel subjected
the Committee to their own form of torture. Speaking in acronyms,
half truths and passing-the-buck replies, the DOD witnesses spun
in circles those seeking to get to the bottom — or should we say
the top — of the torture scandal. "I’m sorry Senator you would
have to ask BEEBOP Command within Central One at SIXPACK REDRIVE."
Huh? Oh yeah, let’s not forget this timeless gem: I’m sorry Senator,
I am trying very hard to answer your question, but that was six
years ago and I really have no recollection of that." In listening
to the Senators’ incredulous follow-ups you had the clear impression
that they had no idea what the heck these witnesses were talking
about. It was the DOD’s version of the hear-no-evil, see-no-evil,
speak-no-evil monkeys.

Predictably,
lawyers from the Department of Defense expressed indignation at
the Senators’ suggestions that they may have crossed any lines.
In Jessup-like fashion they deviated from direct questions in part
to avoid answering them and in part to provide long lectures about
terrorism, terrorists and the need to defend the country through
the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques." The implication
was clear. The determination of how badly detainees can be abused
is a matter of national security and only the military — not some
namby-pamby Senators or U.S citizens — are smart enough to make
that decision.

Taguba has
concluded that "There
is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration
has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered
is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to
account." "Taguba! You make me puke! You want the
truth? You can’t handle the truth!" No, and frankly, neither
can the rest of us.

June
23, 2008

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

DIGG THIS

Amid
much fanfare, leaders of Middle Eastern nations met in Annapolis
this week at the invitation of the Bush Administration. The premise
was to jump-start long dormant negotiations between the Arabs and
Israel over their future relations. It featured the pomp and formality
which typifies state events. There were the customary opening speeches
filled with flowery promises that this time things will be different.

A
realistic look at what led the parties down the road to Annapolis
leaves one more sober about its future prospects and provides insight
into the classic conflict between rulers and the ruled.

The
first defect of Annapolis was that it was motivated by panic rather
than any real commitment to peace. All of its participants sense
that they are in trouble, are feeling insecure about their futures
and fear that the clock is about to strike midnight. Israel is still
in crisis from the debacle of its last Lebanon invasion. Constant
military mobilization is straining its economy, and Gaza has become
its worst nightmare. Syria senses its international isolation, the
pressure of being squeezed between Israel and the US forces occupying
Iraq, and the crippling economic effects of housing over one
million Iraqi refugees. The Palestinians are under increasing
siege by Israel while engaged in an internecine struggle of their
own. The Bush Administration is desperate for any foreign policy
achievement before the sand runs through its twelve-month hourglass.
It is not a coincidence that the announced deadline for a final
agreement is to be within
twelve months.

Foremost
in panicking the herd is the rising power of Iran and Islamic fundamentalism.
Israel, the U.S., Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Muslim nations backing
the conference feel the shadow of Iran and growing fundamentalist
influence drawing
them together. Even Syria is rumored to be less than comfortable
with its decreasingly symbiotic relationship with Iran.
One can debate whether this is good or not. However, no party’s
fear of Iran can provide a solid basis for peaceful relations with
its enemies at Annapolis. It is a false premise which gives rise
to a temporary alliance at best. What will become of the warm fuzzy
feelings once Iran is no longer a threat?

The second problem is that the claimed desire for peace is being
propounded by leaders who are discredited among their own people.
Their lack of popularity stems from their chronic failures to fulfill
past promises. The conference can be seen as a fraternity of unpopular
government officials looking for their opponents to throw them a
life preserver. They are primarily concerned with their own legacies
and their abilities to hold on to power. Desperate times call for
desperate measures. Desperate politicians may commit to deals which
their citizens were not asked to approve and will never honor. The
closer Arab rulers draw toward Israel the less credibility they
have among their own people. Egypt’s Sadat signed a peace agreement
with Israel twenty-eight years ago, and paid for the treaty with
his life. Today there are virtually no exchanges between Israelis
and Egyptians, and hatred of Israel remains high among the average
Egyptian.

The most glaring example of this problem is the divide within the
Palestinian camp itself. Hamas won a democratic election insisted
upon by the US. It was then deprived of its seat by its opponents.
Those who supported Hamas were starved politically, economically
and literally. Its leaders were subjected to targeted assassinations.
Other Hamas politicians were rounded up and imprisoned by Israel
with the complicity of the Fatah opposition. Yet, despite or perhaps
because of these acts Hamas’ popularity rose among the Palestinians
to the horror of outsiders. In the summer of 2007, Hamas would drive
Fatah out and consolidate its hold over Gaza. Many experts claim
that Hamas enjoys widespread support within
the West Bank as well. Yet, it is Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah who
have taken the Palestinian seat at the Annapolis table. Abbas and
Fatah proclaimed themselves to be the sole legitimate representatives
of the Palestinian people while tens of thousands of Hamas supporters
publicly made a mockery of the declaration.

Israeli Prime Minister Ohlmert, has seen a string of disasters
plague his administration.
His ratings are sinking like a stone. Yet, he confidently declares
that he can deliver the approval and backing of the very people
who cannot wait for his departure. How many Israelis are prepared
to have a Palestinian state next
door? How many would relinquish their occupation of Jerusalem,
the West Bank and Golan Heights? How many Israelis are ready to
embrace the potential return of millions of Palestinians who were
made refugees in the quest to establish a Jewish state in Palestine?
Will Israelis approve the demolition of the second "Great Wall"
or the abandonment of decades of settlements built on occupied land?

President Bush is the least popular of all of the leaders who scurried
to Annapolis. His lack of popularity at home is exceeded only by
his lack of popularity in the Middle East where Bush is considered
the devil incarnate. With domestic approval ratings in the low
20′s and barely a year left in office what foreign leader would
sanely place his future in Bush’s hands? Answer: A foreign leader
who is as desperate and unconcerned about the views of his own people
as Bush is.

More
importantly, why should we expect the respective citizens of either
side to honor a plan which they oppose, and what is the plan worth
if the only ones agreeing to it are the rulers rather than the ruled?

December
1, 2007

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

DIGG THIS

Great
news from Iraq! Tribal leaders who used to be fighting against US
forces have turned their forces against Al Qaida instead. These
tribal forces are working with US forces and the stars are now properly
aligned in this epic battle of good against evil.

Desperate
for any good news out of Iraq, the Administration has selected the
tribes of Anbar as its latest poster child for Mission Accomplished
and no Mission Accomplished commercial would be complete without
the staged appearance of The Decider himself. Heeeeeeere’s
Dubya!

Do
not take too much from the realignment of the tribes of Anbar. In
Arabic there is an old proverb which translates as "The enemy
of my enemy is my friend." This not only explains what is going
on in Anbar, but throughout Iraq.

The
Kurds have been America’s greatest benefactors in Iraq. Protected
and encouraged by US economic and military aid for decades they
gratefully threw their militias into the US campaign to topple Saddam’s
regime. We can count on the Kurds…or can we? When it suited their
immediate objectives the Kurds proved willing to align themselves
with anyone including Saddam. When US interests — such as our
greater interest in preserving a relationship with Turkey —
run afoul of Kurdish national
ambitions, will the Kurds continue to be the friendly lapdog
we have come to know and love?

The Shiites took arms and support from the US following Gulf War
I, but fought the hardest against the US invasion of 2003. Since
the invasion they have fought with US forces and against them. When
they sensed that the US shared their objective of subduing the Sunni
ruling class they were willing participants in our plan for democracy.
As US forces turned on Shiite
militias and cozied up to disaffected Sunnis, they came out
fighting,
probably using the same arms we had provided them to fight Saddam.

Sunnis, who suffered the most from America’s takeover, transformed
into the insurgency and quickly began dispatching American forces,
their private mercenary army and their multi-billion dollar Halliburton
infrastructure. The Sunnis were our darlings when they were fighting
Iran in the 1980′s. Post-invasion they became our worst nightmare.
In a kiss-and-makeup move, US forces have now decided to woo all
manner of Sunnis from local tribal leaders to former
Baathists. Yes, this wooing comes complete with American firepower
for use against their designated enemies be they Al Qaida, the Shiites
or opposing tribal leaders with whom they have a blood feud.

The Administration’s talent for deception is only outweighed by
its talent for self-deception. Rather than making friends and influencing
people, American forces have become an extension of the private
armies at war with each other in Iraq. While we fancy ourselves
as the party calling the shots, it is the Iraqis who are skillfully
manipulating US forces like the pea in the shell game. Iraqis at
war with each other are more than happy to make a
temporary accommodation with US forces in order to eliminate their
enemy du jour. They cannot believe the kind of firepower and
logistical support that is placed at their disposal on a handshake
and a promise. And let’s not forget infrastructure.
"Yes Colonel, I will supply you with the names of the terrorists.
Now, could you put the swimming pool a little closer to the Starbucks?"

September
5, 2007

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

DIGG THIS

The anti-climactic
verdict is in. Saddam is guilty and will hang. His trial was held
under American military occupation within the Green Zone — a section
of Baghdad built by America and completely isolated from its indigenous
surroundings — with a court appointed by the occupation authorities
(at least one judge was dismissed after he stated in open court
that he did not consider Saddam to be a dictator)
under conditions established by the occupation authorities, during
which three defense attorneys were murdered. Bush’s staged appearance
before a national television audience two days before the mid-term
election to comment upon the verdict further belied the party line
that this was purely an Iraqi affair. The dilemma for the Administration
is this: If it takes credit for the conviction and execution of
Saddam it is conceding America’s hand in it. If not, it cannot claim
the verdict as an achievement.

It
is a virtual certainty that Iraqis disaffected under Saddam’s rule
would have dispatched their former persecutor with or without American
assistance. Yet, this is further evidence of the lack of any real
achievement by the occupation. Serving the former dictator up to
formerly disenfranchised groups which have demonstrated their penchant
for treating others the way they were once treated is status quo
not progress. Adding to the body count in Baghdad is hardly an accomplishment.
"Yes, but this is justice for one who mistreated others,"
says the Administration. Every death in Iraq has a rationale attached.

Saddam
was sentenced for directing an assault upon the Iraqi village of
Dujail which resulted in the revenge killings of 148 of his fellow
Iraqis. Dujail was targeted because an attempt to assassinate Saddam
originated there. Bush ordered the wholesale destruction of Fallujah,
a city with a population of approximately 300,000. Fallujah’s crime
was to resist the occupation. Saddam was accused of political imprisonment
and torture. Bush has probably imprisoned more Iraqis for political
reasons and has been at the helm for Abu Ghraib and other grisly
scenes of the occupation. Saddam was accused of having used chemical
weapons against insurgent populations. Bush used shock and awe,
cluster
bombs, napalm
and white
phosphorous against those who dared oppose
his master plan.

“The
man who once struck fear in the hearts of Iraqis had to listen to
free Iraqis recount the acts of torture and murder that he ordered
against their families and against them.” While this was President
Bush commenting on the guilty verdict against
Saddam Hussein, it could just as well have been an observation about
President Bush himself.

In
the end, Saddam will hang for his crimes. What happens to George
W. Bush may be the greater test of whether there is justice in Iraq.

November
8, 2006

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

DIGG THIS

As
the media orgy over 9/11 subsides and the President’s speech is
still ringing in people’s ears, there is one aspect of 9/11 that
has somehow managed to evade examination in 5 years.

The
question which is never asked is "why?" Why did so many
American citizens die on American soil that day? Why would people
want to attack us in such a vicious and grandiose fashion?

No
answer? That is because the question is never asked. The reason
it is never asked is because most Americans are like my father-in-law.
When asked yesterday why he thinks people hate us, his response
is that he does not care why and does not want to know. Sadly, neither
do most Americans.

Certainly
the government does not want you to know the answer to that question.
That is why it offers up its own canard: "They hate us because
we are free." Yet, a simple examination of other nations which
are free demonstrates how thread-bare this explanation is. Canada,
Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand: they are all free, and they are
all free of "the threat." We are back to "why?"

The
9/11 Commission spent millions of dollars and countless months investigating
the cause of 9/11. Despite their publication of volumes of research,
there is no answer in their report to the question of "why?"
That is because the question was never asked. If the real answer
were known, it would lead directly back to Washington like a fuse
burns to its point of origin, and the result would be just as explosive.

Of
course the easiest source for the answer is to ask the people behind
the movement. They are hardly shy, and have on many occasions expressed
their motivations for their campaign against this country. Even
the Pentagon knows the painful answer to the question of "why?"
"Muslims do not hate u2018our freedom,’ but rather, they hate
our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objection to
what they see as our one-sided support in favor of Israel and against
Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support
for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably in
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states….the
dramatic narrative since 9/11has essentially borne out the entire
radical Islamist bill of particulars."

Someone has to answer for 9/11. However, we do not need to go beyond
our own shores to find the culprit. The federal government, using
tax dollars coerced from its citizens, has pursued foreign policies
which are contrary to Americans’ best interests and have infuriated
those who are the object of the polices to the point that they are
willing to sacrifice their own lives to strike back at America.
The cruel irony is that the very same government whose twisted foreign
adventures brought about 9/11 was also impotent to protect Americans
from the disaster it had sown. Why? The answer lies in the very
essence of centralized government. Removed geographically and philosophically
from the people it is supposed to serve, it remains absorbed in
a perpetual quest to gain and hold power. When the bombs start falling
here, the politicians will be the first ones out of town
in armored limousines en route to fortified bunkers. Do you really
need to ask why?

September
13, 2006

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

DIGG THIS

Lebanon
has never had more than a fledgling army. That is because Lebanon
chose not to. In part this was because Lebanon wished to remain
a non-combatant even though surrounded by conflict. It was more
interested in devoting its resources toward commercial development.
In this sense it was not unlike Switzerland. There was also the
specter of an army which would be as divided by communal affiliation
as the nation itself.

The
United States has announced
plans to provide military training and equipment to Lebanon. The
U.S. says it will increase military assistance by ten times its
current level. Is this Washington’s plan or Lebanon’s? Of course,
there has been no confirmation of this plan by Lebanon.

One can hardly escape the irony that the announcement is being made
as America’s do-no-wrong ally is laying waste to Lebanon and its
population with weapons we have gifted to it. In order to avoid
a lag in the pace of destruction America has even placed laser-guided
bombs on "rush"
delivery to Israel.

Is
it recognition of the need to defend Lebanon against Israel which
has motivated this sudden determination to make the Lebanese u2018be
all that they can be?’ Will the U.S. provide Lebanon with an air
defense system capable of stopping Israel’s at-will violations of
Lebanese airspace and its aerial demolition of the infrastructure
into which Lebanon elected to invest its national treasure rather
than a standing army? Will the U.S. equip Lebanon to the point that
its army can repel another Israeli ground invasion? No.

Three
objectives accompany America’s military plan for Lebanon. First,
the U.S. seeks to control Lebanese military capability. If the Lebanese
should stray from official neocon policy they will suddenly find
themselves without spare parts and a called loan. Secondly, the
U.S. wants the Lebanese military to be strong enough to strangle
the formation of internal militias hostile to Israel. Thirdly, by
restricting its development to that of a national police force,
the U.S. will insure that the Lebanese armed forces will serve the
goal of defending Israel from within Lebanon while being unable
to hinder any Israeli military invasion into Lebanon.

The
ill-conceived plan obviously ignores the political mood and demographics
in Lebanon. When the devastation ends and the rebuilding begins,
the Lebanese political scene will not resemble the old, colonial,
Paris-of-the-Middle-East which Washington and Paris are so desperately
trying to resurrect. The "Cedar Revolution" conceived
of and promoted by Washington’s neocons withered almost before the
confetti hit the ground.
This is not the 1950′s. This is not your father’s Lebanon.

Even before Israel’s latest invasion, Hezbollah was supported by
roughly 50% of the Lebanese population, and was firmly established
in Lebanese social, religious and political life. While Israel destroys
every part of Lebanon with U.S. encouragement, even highway bridges
in the Christian north,
more Lebanese are rallying to Hezbollah’s side
than ever before.

Any
new Lebanese army will be comprised of the very people who are fighting
Israel and cursing the U.S. now. Its core will be the members of
Hezbollah and its supporters. Hezbollah is South Lebanon. That will
not change if and when they put on Lebanese army uniforms. Hezbollah
will either dominate the new Lebanese army or be the force which
prevents it from forming.

August
7, 2006

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

June
23, 2006

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

Their
deaths were labeled, "an
act of warfare" by Rear Admiral Harry Harris, Commander
of Joint Task Force Guantanamo. An act of warfare? The U.S. military
has been able to backslide on virtually every basic due process
and humanitarian consideration for the prisoners at Guantanamo precisely
because — according to the Administration — they are not prisoners
of war.

Yet
somehow these sneaky devils were able to commit an act of warfare
against the United States while being held as non-prisoners of war.
It was another Pearl Harbor, a 9-11. How could we anticipate or
defend against such an ingenious act of aggression against our nation?
If they have committed an act of warfare are their corpses now entitled
to treatment under the Geneva Convention? Are we now at war with
Saudi Arabia and Yemen because it was their nationals who committed
this heinous act of warfare against the United States?

This
Administration has hit rock bottom in its semantic shell game with
the American public. We have the right to attack anyone anywhere
in the world who we perceive as a potential threat. If they resist
us they will be labeled terrorists. We have the right to hold any
suspected terrorist in conditions of our choosing, without charges
and without access to the courts because they have engaged in acts
of terrorism not violations of the criminal law. We need not treat
terrorists according to any accepted conventions because they are
not military personnel.

If
they try to escape by taking their own lives, they will have committed
an act of war against us. They are terrorists if they take the lives
of others. Now, they are terrorists if they take their own lives
without taking the lives of others. Are we angry because they are
dead or because we did not get to kill them ourselves?

Maybe
we should order a preemptive air strike against the remaining prisoners
at Guantanamo to prevent the possibility of future acts of warfare
by them and to safeguard the republic.

June
14, 2006

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

Al-Zarqawi
had been raised to mythical proportions by the U.S. occupation authorities
who desperately tried to explain away the growing insurgency and
their own failure to diffuse it. The quandary for the authorities:
Now that al-Zarqawi is gone how will they explain the seamless continuation
of the insurgency?

In
fact, al-Zarqawi had repulsed and angered the core of the insurgency
which saw his tactics as counter-productive and had begun to marginalize
him altogether.
It is more likely that al-Zarqawi was "given up" by the
insurgency to rid itself of a public relations and recruiting liability.

In
Washington, Donald Rumsfeld surfaced to beat his chest about the
al-Zarqawi killing. We were shown video of the air strike, scenes
of its aftermath and the placid death mask of al-Zarqawi. Rumsfeld
praised the efforts of U.S. forces in tracking down and killing
al-Zarqawi whom he classified as a terrorist responsible for the
deaths of many innocent Iraqis. There was no mention of the daily
slaughter of innocent Iraqis by U.S. forces in Haditha and other
parts of Iraq. There was also no mention of Lt. Ehren Watada.

At
Fort Lewis, Washington, U.S. Army Lt. Ehren Watada announced that
he will refuse to deploy to Iraq.
"The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people
is not only a terrible moral injustice but a contradiction of the
Army’s own law of land warfare. My participation would make me party
to war crimes," explained Watatda. Even more refreshing was
Watada’s observation that his moral and legal duties were to the
U.S. Constitution, "not those who would issue unlawful orders."

American
forces are praised for killing al-Zarqawi and preventing the deaths
of even more innocent Iraqis. These are the same American forces
which are coy about their own murder of Iraqi civilians. Army Lt.
Watatda refuses to kill innocent Iraqis. The defense department
says he cannot do that. Lt. Watatda will be prosecuted for refusing
to kill innocent Iraqis. Marines at Haditha will be prosecuted for
killing innocent Iraqis.

What
is wrong with this picture?

June
9, 2006

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

That
was President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson’s personal belief system would
plunge an unwilling nation into World War I with the loss of untold
lives, domestic liberties and capital. President Bush lends credence
to the adage that history repeats itself. The men, their ideologies
and their policies are eerily similar.

Both
men left state governorships to ascend to the White House at the
beginning of new centuries. Both men came from white Protestant
backgrounds, although President Bush’s zeal for fundamental Christian
values became an acquired taste. Both men were graduates of Ivy
League institutions. One can only speculate as to how much better
off the nation would be if the comparisons ended there. Tragically,
they do not. President Bush appears to be embarked upon the same
delusional path as his predecessor was at the turn of the last century.

One
author describes this peculiar mindset as Gnosticism. This description
accurately captures both Wilson and Bush. "They tend to divide
the world into two camps — light and dark — and to interpret all
political disagreements and wars as absolute struggles between the
kingdom of God and the forces of Satan. Ordinary war becomes the
Last Judgment, every battle becomes Armageddon." (Reassessing
the Presidency, Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2001, Woodrow
Wilson’s Revolution Within The Form, by Richard M. Gamble, p. 416)

Both
men campaigned upon slogans which promised no foreign entanglements.
Wilson’s re-election campaign slogan, "He
kept us out of war," is credited with his narrow re-election
victory. Campaigning for election in 2000, George Bush promised
not to send the armed forces abroad for what he called nation
building, a direct criticism of Clinton’s armed interventions
in Somalia and Yugoslavia. Instead, Bush promised to bring troops
home from their many foreign deployments, leaving nation building
up to the people of those nations.

Within four months of his re-election, Wilson reversed course and
took the nation into the very war he promised to keep the nation
out of. In a bizarre distortion of the nation’s principles, Wilson
argued that entry into the war was an unfulfilled mission of the
Founding Fathers, that it was imperative for America not to hoard
its freedom and liberty but to expand it throughout the globe. In
his April 2, 1917 speech to Congress urging a declaration of war
on Germany, Wilson argued that "The
world must be made safe for democracy."

President
Bush would reverse his campaign promises and take the nation to
war within less than a year of his election to the Presidency. Bush
would draw upon the same themes as Wilson in selling his war to
a reluctant American public. "From the day of our Founding,
we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights,
and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of
the Maker of Heaven and earth…It is the honorable achievement of
our fathers…The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion
of freedom in all the world."

The struggle between tyranny and democracy would preoccupy Wilson,
who became obsessed with defeating what he termed "[a] thing,
not a people." (Ibid at 420) Wilson would not compromise upon
what he viewed as the ultimate battle between good and evil. President
Bush would strike the same chord in his 2005 inaugural address.
"We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because
we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery."
Bush drew a starker line by demanding that the entire world divide
itself into two camps, "Either you are with us or you are with
the terrorists."

Wilson navely equated democracy with peace. "A
steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a
partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic government could
be trusted to keep faith within it or observe its covenants."
President Bush would ignore decades of history in asserting
that "Free nations don’t wage wars of aggression…Free nations
are peaceful nations."

Bush’s preoccupation with Saddam mirrored Wilson’s obsession with
the Kaiser of Germany. Both men saw their foes as the devil incarnate,
poster boys for the "evil" their crusades were designed
to eliminate throughout the earth. Both Presidents also attempted
to justify the mayhem they would unleash upon the opposing nation
by telling the people of that nation that we had no quarrel with
them, only their leader. Wilson’s apology, "We have no quarrel
with the German people."
President Bush produced a template apology in anticipation of multiple
uses, "The United States respects the people of Afghanistan…
but we condemn the Taliban regime."
"The United States and its coalition partners respect the people
of Iraq….Our only enemy is Saddam’s brutal regime…"
The beleaguered peoples of these nations have no doubt been left
to wonder, "With friends like this, who needs enemies?"

It
can also be argued that despite their public pronouncements to the
contrary, both Wilson and Bush desired a breakup of the nations
they went to war against. Wilson’s target was the Austro-Hungarian
Empire, while Bush sought to end central control and splinter Iraq
into Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni cantons. Neither President invented
divide-and-conquer, but both were its willing students.

The
similarities between Wilson and Bush do not end with their foreign
crusades to banish evil from the planet. They also developed tandem
domestic policies which were in part driven by their overly ambitious
foreign adventures. Wilson used the war as his excuse for severely
curtailing domestic dissent and private liberties. The Espionage
Act of 1917 and its counterpart the Sedition
Act of 1918 were written in terms so broad as to make virtually
any criticism of Mr. Wilson’s war a treason punishable by up to
twenty years in prison.

President
Bush would produce the ironically-named Patriot Act to wield against
those who dared oppose his crusade against the evil. More Draconian
than either of Mr. Wilson’s laws, the Patriot Act provides virtually
unlimited powers to the executive to monitor, arrest and imprison
anyone whom the government deems a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer.

Also
common to the agendas of Presidents Wilson and Bush, is an unending
commitment to warfare to achieve their stated goals. As Gamble details,
Wilson was adamant that "u2018There can be no compromise.’ As a
minimal condition of peace, he promised, there must be u2018the destruction
of every arbitrary power anywhere that can separately, secretly
and of its single choice disturb the peace of the world.’"
(Ibid at 418) Bush described his war on terrorism as "a task
that does not end." "This war will not be like the war
against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory
and a swift conclusion….Americans should not expect one battle,
but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen."

Both
Presidents would realize the opposite of their stated goals. Wilson’s
legacy was the rise of Hitler and Stalin, the entrenchment of colonial
rule, a global recession and the deprivation of liberty at home.
Bush is blamed for making America feared and despised across the
globe, giving rise to Islamic-based governments, creating an enhanced
terrorist threat, and abandoning constitutional protections for
Americans. Both Presidents staked their political fortunes upon
their foreign campaigns, which initially saw their poll numbers
soar only to see them plummet once a gullible public finally came
out of its war-induced intoxication.

When
George Bush looks in the mirror is Woodrow Wilson looking back?

May
23, 2006

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

Sure
there would be challenges such as ignorance of the landscape, language,
culture, religions and ethnic mosaic, no knowledge of how commerce
was conducted, and — go figure — a nation of people who would violently
resist our little social experiment.

Have
no fear! Washington would pour billions of bullets and dollars into
this little program to compensate for all of its shortcomings. The
Administration would destroy everything then take credit for restoring
it all. Nothing was immune from our benevolence. We would empty
entire cities, attempt to change the national flag, form new political
parties, outlaw others, print and supply our own textbooks, confiscate
private property, close down opposition media, fund our own media,
imprison opposition figures, bribe others and kill others. Cost
would be no object — or would it be?

Last
week it was reported that a plan to build 142 medical clinics at
a cost of $200 million dollars had fallen short. Short, as in gaining
7 yards on a pass in football when you needed to gain 50 yards.

Of
a projected 142 clinics, a mere 20 are reported to have been completed
(washingtonpost.com 4-3-06). At a total cost of $200 million, that
means each clinic cost $10 million to complete. There is no description
of what these $10 million wonders consist of. You can be certain
they are not major medical facilities or hospitals. They may consist
of nothing more than a neighborhood emergency clinic. After all,
their original projected cost was less than $1.5 million apiece.
Actually the original projected cost was $700,000.00 per clinic
when you consider that the 142-clinic objective was scaled back
from an original goal of 300. In other words, a 100% expenditure
of the budget resulted in a completion rate of only 7%.

In
one of the greatest understatements of the year, the World Health
Organization’s spokesperson in Cairo is quoted as saying, "That’s
not good. That’s shocking." I would agree, especially since
U.S. bombs and sanctions destroyed most of the primary health care
system in the first place.

Medical
clinics are not unique. According to the washingtonpost.com article,
"[t]he American reconstruction effort would be able to finish
only 300 of 425 promised electricity projects and 49 of 136 water
and sanitation projects." To coin the W.H.O., u2018That’s not good.’

If
nothing else, the Iraqis are becoming excellent students in American
government. Unfortunately, the lessons may be painful, even fatal.
So, pass the bandages and the iodine. Hey, Mr. Bush, this clinic
is really nice!

April
11, 2006

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

Utilizing
a succession of military and civilian bureaucrats, Washington has
spent three years trying to impose its blueprint upon an increasingly
resistant Iraqi population. The world’s most expensive military
has been deployed to try to force political change and define the
boundaries of a conflict which knows no boundaries. After three
years, Washington is farther than ever from its illegal goals. Take
Operation Swarmer.

Utilizing
50 transport and assault helicopters and 20 tactical vehicles ferrying
1,500 U.S. and Iraqi troops, the force set off for an "insurgent
stronghold." According to Lt. Colonel Edward Loomis of the
101st Airborne, "We believe we achieved tactical
surprise." Yet, apparently nobody was home when they arrived.
According to reports of the operation "No resistance and no
casualties were reported." The 1,500 Swarmers nabbed a whopping
"40 suspects…10 of whom were later released." (MSNBC.com
March 17, 2006) Undoubtedly, the release of the remaining suspects
will quietly follow. All in a day’s work in Iraq.

Operation
Swarmer is a symptom of U.S. failure in Iraq. Our entire invasion
and occupation has been like throwing a stone into a lake. There
is a splash, followed by some ripples, before everything returns
to its natural level…and the stone sits uselessly at the bottom
of the lake surrounded by water.

The
Administration deluded itself into believing that our military could
forcibly transform a nation of millions into their compliant lap
dogs. Three years ago the Administration deluded many Americans
into believing the same fable, but the public has seen enough and
is no longer the dupe.

Bush
has tied his approval ratings to the results of his policies in
Iraq and both are sinking like a stone. When the ripples of our
military occupation subside Iraq will return to its natural level
and we will be sitting at the bottom of the lake wondering how we
got there.

March
23, 2006

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

I
have handled many cases involving the Constitutional rights of citizens.
In the area of 1st Amendment rights, there is a concept
referred to as the “chilling effect.”

Simply
stated, the courts have recognized that when government uses its
coercive powers to punish certain behavior (including speech), it
creates a chilling effect on the free exercise of those behaviors
by others in the future.

Coercive
powers may involve taxing the behavior, censoring the behavior or
otherwise punishing those who engage in the behavior. When others
witness this, they naturally tend to hedge their risks by avoiding
the behavior in the future.

The
Bush Administration has taken great steps to quash dissent and criticism.
From the Draconian measures of the ironically named Patriot Act
to seizing and imprisoning citizens without access to due process
of law, this Administration has gone where no other has gone before
it. More importantly, it has allowed its steamroller approach to
civil liberties to become public knowledge precisely to intimidate
critics who will see the specter of themselves hanging hooded from
electrical cables in some foreign (or domestic) dungeon as too great
a price to pay for the exercise of their 1st Amendment
rights.

This
approach is hardly new to history. It has been carried out for centuries
by any number of tyrants. Consider the scourging and crucifixion
of Jesus of Nazareth and the resulting retreat of his previously
ardent apostles as a starting point.

LRC
is a target because those who target it fear it. They do not fear
the actual authors who contribute to the site. They fear the site
for providing those authors a widely read forum from which others
learn information they do not want others to consider. This is information
that the mainstream media will not publish for fear of losing their
precious government sources or incurring FCC retribution. For me,
LRC is Paul Revere or the Chinese student standing in front of the
tank in Tiananmen Square.

If
you value your rights, demonstrate
that with a contribution to LRC. You are actually contributing
to your freedom.

December
28, 2005

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

Trump:O.K.,
you came to this place over 2 years ago to seize and destroy weapons
of mass destruction….

Bush:Well,
actually we wanted to make the world safe from terrorism, Mr.
Trump.

Trump:Please
don’t interrupt me.

Bush:Sorry
sir.

Trump:Have
you or your team uncovered any weapons of mass destruction?

Bush:Not
exactly, but…

Trump:What
do you mean by that? Either you have or you haven’t.

Bush:Haven’t,
but this guy is no longer running the ranch (pointing to Saddam
and snickering)

Trump:Let
me get this straight, you have not found any weapons of mass destruction
in 2 years, no links to Al Queda or 9/11 established, — by the
way you also failed to protect your own nation from 9/11 but I
am not even considering that — violence of all types is up, religious
fundamentalism is on the rise, oil pipelines are being sabotaged,
you have destroyed entire cities, antiquities have been looted
or ruined and there are shortages of just about everything including
medicines, potable water, fuel and electricity. Those you haven’t
killed or maimed have been just plain lucky. Nice work!

Cheney:If
I may speak here. We have established democracy, the first free
election in 50 years.

Trump:Are
you the team leader?

Cheney:Basically,
yes.

Trump:So
why shouldn’t I fire you then? (Trump turns to his male advisor)

Cheney:(Disappears
before Trump can turn back)

Trump:Where
the hell did he go? O.K. Saddam, your team may have had a slightly
better record, but why should you be in charge?

Saddam:My
team had established the highest literacy rates, nutritional levels,
life expectancies and lowest infant mortality rates in the nation’s
history.

Trump:Hmmm.
Go on.

Saddam:We
never had an Islamic fundamentalist movement, suicide bombings,
kidnappings or beheadings. We never had infrastructure shortages
either until this guy (pointing to Bush) and his dad came along.

Bush:Hey!

Trump:All
right. All right. You weren’t exactly winning any popularity contests
Saddam. You invaded two neighboring countries. You killed a lot
of people too. What would you consider your team’s worst problem?

Saddam:We
were ruthless with our opposition.

Trump:I
can identify with that. Not necessarily a negative with me.

Saddam:(Smiling)

Bush:I
have tried to be an effective leader. I think I deserve another
chance.

Trump:I
think you were given your last chance in November 2004. Who do
you blame for the dismal performance of your team, and I mean
it has been dismal with a capital u2018D.’

Bush:I
didn’t realize that word — whatever it means — began with a u2018D’,
but I would have to say Cheney or Rumsfeld.

Cheney:(Sneering
as he listens to the conversation from a secret hiding place and
thinking, “You little twerp.” “You didn’t even know where Iraq
was until we showed you on.")

Rumsfeld:Mr.
Trump, I tried my best to listen to this rough-edged, phony accented,
Yale alum, but look at him. (chuckling) Is he a leader? No. Quite
frankly, we were sold a bill of goods when his father asked us
to make him the team leader. Unfortunate choice.

Trump:And
they call me pompous and arrogant.

Rumsfeld:Excuse
me?

Trump:Never
mind. All of you step out of the room. I think I have made a decision.
(15-minute caucus after which the parties are brought back)

Trump:Saddam,
you have very little to brag about. By the way, do you really
expect to be a leader with that unshaven look and the baggy suit?
Who is your tailor? That guy oughta be fired! You need to put
on a little weight too. Appearance makes the man.

Saddam:They
have kept me in a tiny room, not let me shave and fed me Raisin
Bran and Doritos.

Trump:(turning
to Bush’s team) Is that true?

Bush:He
is exaggerating Mr. Trump.

Trump:(Rolling
his eyes at Bush) Yeah, whatever.

Trump:Look
George, I am not sure you were cut out to lead anybody. I don’t
even know how you got into this position. You have shown me nothing,
absolutely nothing on this Iraq project. Your own team thinks
you are a joke, although I think they are out to save their own
hides when they have to share in the responsibility for this mess.
God, what a mess! If I ran a company like this, the Board would
have me thrown out on the street.

Bush:(Smiling
blankly)

Trump:(Pointing
the finger at Bush) You’re fired!

Bush:(Still
smiling blankly)

Trump:Saddam,
you are no bargain, but the country was running a lot better when
you were in charge. I am going to give you another chance. Shave,
get a decent suit and for God’s sake lay off of the Doritos.

August
19, 2005

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

Toward
the end of his run he is breathing heavily, his face dripping with
sweat. As the music continues to play loudly in his ears, he is
singing along with it. Remembering that there is a coffee shop in
the nearby transit station, he turns to jog up the stairs into the
station, passing police officers on the way. Before entering the
shop, the man, slows to a cool-down walk, pacing back and forth
to slow his breathing. He continues to listen to the music and repeat
the lyrics to himself.

Minutes
later, a crowd gathers, as the man lays dead on the pavement, the
victim of a single gunshot wound to the head, music still playing
into his now blood-filled ears. What happened?

Welcome
to USA 2005. No, this is not a new video game. The International
Association of Chiefs of Police, following a week of schooling in
Israel, decided that they liked what they saw and heard enough to
recommend its adoption on America’s streets.

New
guidelines issued by the International Association of Chiefs of
Police authorize a police officer to shoot-to-kill any suspected
terrorist by shooting him in the head. "You need to get
him dead as soon as possible." Says Miami Police Chief
John F. Timoney. (Washington Post.com, August 3, 2005).

How
will police identify a terrorist before they put a bullet through
his head? The IACP lays down the following terrorist profile: "wearing
a heavy coat or jacket in warm weather" (no definition
of what constitutes a heavy coat or what is considered warm weather)
"carrying a briefcase, dufflebag or backpack with protrusions
or visible wires" (make sure it zips neatly shut and get
Bluetooth) "might display nervousness" (take a
Xanax before leaving your house) "unwillingness to make
eye contact" (shyness is now punishable by death) "excessive
sweating" (no definition of how much you are permitted
to sweat without risking your life) "might mumble prayers"
(such as praying that nobody shoots you in the head) or "pacing
back and forth in front of a venue" (no definition of what
constitutes pacing or what constitutes a venue).

Think
this scenario cannot get worse? Think again. While previous use-of-force
guidelines required police officers to be faced with an imminent
threat before deploying deadly force, the new guidelines eliminate
this pesky threshold. "An officer just needs to have a u2018reasonable
basis’ to believe that the suspect can detonate a bomb"
under the new guidelines. (Washington Post.com, August 3, 2005).

This
guideline has not been adopted by every police agency in the United
States. You still have time to clean up your act. Get in shape to
avoid sweating, take a Dale Carnegie course to get over shyness,
learn to pray in silence, invest in wireless technology, buy a large
enough backpack or briefcase, and above all else, do not overdress
for weather conditions.

August
10, 2005

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

John
M. Peters Archives

Starting
with World War I and the proliferation of machines fed by fossil
fuels nations began to realize the dire need to capture and control
sources of oil, both as a means of fueling their own war machines
and as a means of denying their enemy the precious resource. The
dynamics of oil supply and demand would shape entire military campaigns
as well as the food chain among nations. Strategically and literally
war was being fueled by oil.

Between
1914 and 1917, the U.S. share of world oil output grew from 65 to
67 percent of a much larger production. Between 1940 and 1945 it
rose from 63 percent to some two thirds of a nearly doubled world
output at war's end. The Middle East by contrast, produced less
than 5 percent in 1940 and not much more in 1945…By 1975 oil was
becoming a critical factor to the CIA, where George H.W. Bush took
over…By 1980, the United States produced under 20 percent of world
petroleum output and had to import 30 percent of its needs. By 2000,
the U.S. share of production had shrunk further and 50 percent of
U.S. consumption had to be imported. …Leverage would continue to
swing to the Middle East with Gulf producers alone expected to provide
54 to 67 percent of world oil exports in 2020….A careful listener
could almost hear the war drums….Cheney and his chief of staff,
Lewis Libby, had already participated in drafting a 2000 report
for the project for a New American Century that called for taking
over Iraq — this well before 9/11 — as part of a larger, oil-minded
Pax Americana. (American
Dynasty, Kevin Phillips, pp 254–255, Viking 2004)

A
study of the Bush family demonstrates a multi-generational history
of connections to oil, the intelligence community and the military
institutions of America. This triad would see its ascendancy in
the 20th century, with two world wars sending the demand
for petroleum, intelligence assets and military spending soaring.
The century would see a parallel rise in Bush family political and
personal fortunes, the most notable of which were the father/son
Presidencies.

Was
it mere coincidence that both Bush Administrations made control
of Middle East oil resources a priority? Under a cloak of WMD, terrorism
and the need for democracy, Bush the son would exceed his father's
creeping approach with an undisguised invasion and occupation of
Iraq. If you think that the invasion was not about oil, consider
that as part of pre-war preparations, "The (U.S. Army's)
land forces command printed 100,000 maps of southern Iraqi oilfields,
which the Marines were to secure." (New York Times, October
20, 2004.)

Operation
Desert Storm was undertaken in part we were told to prevent Saddam
Hussein from driving oil prices over $25.00/barrel. Today Saddam
is gone and oil has topped $60.00/barrel.

The
Taliban's rejection of American overtures for the establishment
of an oil pipeline through that central Asian nation is documented.
Their demise through U.S. and British invasion followed shortly.

Enter
China. In the battle for control of oil, there is perhaps no greater
threat to neocon plans for global domination than China. As manufacturing
shifts steadily away from the United States and steadily into China's
hands, more petroleum is required to drive the great Chinese machine.
No industrialized nation would be complete without a major military
to carry out its goals, and China is no exception. Commensurate
with China's industrial growth is a major expansion and upgrading
of its military — a fact which has not escaped the attention of
neocon plotters. As noted, large militaries simultaneously increase
demand for, and serve as a means of securing, oil supply. China's
growth will put exponential pressure upon the world oil supply.

Consider
China's recent bid for the purchase of UNOCAL, a fully diversified
American oil company. The bid sent shockwaves through the Beltway
and led to concerted efforts to defeat China's bid. Why? Acquisition
of UNOCAL would not give China control of world oil markets. Its
symbolism was more significant than its impact.

U.S.
military forces and private mercenaries were assigned to protect
the oil fields, oil companies' investments and their employees.
Determined to deny the invaders the spoils of their invasion, insurgents
have routinely targeted oil facilities for destruction and have
engaged in deadly attacks upon the mercenary armies hired to protect
the investment. China was one of many nations which opposed the
invasion and has refused to provide troops for the occupation.

Whether
the motive was primarily to secure petroleum for American consumption
at controlled prices or as future leverage over growing global competitor
China, the role of oil in the occupation of Iraq is a crude reality.

July
26, 2005

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

This
summation of the war was delivered by the Secretary of Defense to
the President from Texas. It did not involve Donald Rumsfeld or
George Bush. The conversation took place on June 9, 1964 between
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and Lyndon B. Johnson.

Like
so many other aspects of The
Fog of War, this passage is chilling in its familiarity.
A video autobiography of the life of Robert McNamara, The Fog
of War derives its name from a segment in which McNamara uses
the expression to explain the disorienting effect of war on rational
thought, as a way of explaining a certain type of madness that overcomes
human rationality.

The
film is a compelling view of the life span of Robert McNamara. It
examines his childhood, his family, his years at universities as
both student and professor, his U.S. Army Air Corp service in WW
II, his meteoric rise to the Presidency of the Ford Motor Company
and his fateful selection by President John F. Kennedy to serve
as Secretary of Defense.

The
film begins with the Cuban Missile Crisis and McNamara's revelation
that in the end "We lucked out!" He expresses a
firm conviction against nuclear proliferation and the policy of
permitting any one man to launch a nuclear holocaust. He concludes
with this admonition: Empathize with your enemy. "We must
try to put ourselves inside their skin, and look at us through their
eyes just to understand the thoughts that lie behind their decisions
and their actions."

Most
of the time is spent focusing upon the Vietnam War and McNamara's
role in it. The parallels between that experience and our present
debacle in Iraq are inescapable to even the most skeptical viewer.

Throughout
the film, one is struck by the dichotomy of McNamara's reactions
to death. At times he a statistician discussing numbers killed as
if dealing with a high school math problem. At other times he appears
shaken and repentant. He discusses methodically his role in the
deliberate firebombing of Japanese cities which burned to death
tens of thousands of Japanese civilians in WW II. Candidly, he admits
that if the United States had lost the war he and others would have
been tried as war criminals and concedes that they were. Yet, he
is visibly shaken in recalling the death of President Kennedy, and
makes the bizarre description of Arlington National Cemetery as
"hauntingly beautiful." He describes how, as President
of Ford Motor Company, he was determined to reduce motor vehicle
deaths and injuries, yet he relays Vietnam era casualties and the
incineration suicide of Quaker protester Norman Morrison outside
of McNamara's Pentagon office without any apparent impact.

Despite
viewer expectation, McNamara refuses to open up completely about
his Vietnam era knowledge, stating that he will be damned if he
does, but prefers to be damned if he doesn't. He is reflective of
the need to stop war, but defends his own contributions to it as
Cold War necessities.

The
film is shot in a unique and riveting style which features taped
telephone conversations between both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson
and McNamara, historic publications and news footage. McNamara is
the only subject interviewed, but becomes the hub of a wheel of
historical figures featured.

McNamara
makes the following argument regarding the projection of American
power abroad:

"What
makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? We are the
strongest nation in the world today. I don't think we should ever
apply that economic, political or military power unilaterally.
If we had followed that rule in Vietnam we wouldn't have been
there. None of our allies supported us…. If we can't persuade
nations of comparable values of the merits of our cause we'd better
re-examine our thinking."

Something
else which strikes the viewer is the unmistakable resemblance between
the young McNamara and the current Secretary of Defense, Donald
Rumsfeld. The slicked back hair, the button down collar shirts and
thin ties, the rimless spectacles, the deliberate public disinformation
and the air of disdain for those deemed less intelligent. Then there
is this piece of advice from McNamara which Rumsfeld has so efficiently
absorbed: "Never answer the question that is asked of you.
Answer the question you wish had been asked of you."

With
the Iraq war raging, Under Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz
left his post to assume the Presidency of The World Bank. With the
Vietnam conflict at its peak in 1968, Secretary of Defense, Robert
McNamara retired to become the President of the World Bank.

CAUTION:
This film contains scenes which may cause the viewer to experience
dj vu.

July
18,
2005

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

Noticing
my plight, the airline agent smiled at me with that smile. You know,
that smile that says "Here stupid, let me do that for you,
before the 87 people in line behind you have you for lunch."
I watched as she entered the exact same information I had entered
twice previously. It did not respond for her either. She walked
back behind the counter where she and another employee examined
another computer screen and exchanged words.

Approaching
me, the agent asked if I had a son named John. I replied affirmatively.
She asked for his birth date which I quickly provided. She asked
what city he was born in. Again I was prompt with my answer. The
smile on her face disappeared as she informed me that my seven-year-old
son was on the government's no-fly list.

Hey,
I know he had a couple of time outs in kindergarten, but the no-fly
list? There I stood, in painful recognition of the fact that despite
the best efforts of my wife and myself we had raised a terrorist
right under our noses.

Rolling
her eyes, the perplexed agent confided that she had previously had
a two-year-old show up on the list. Yes, kids are truly getting
worse at much younger ages. Despite his confirmation as a terrorist
suspect and a threat to national security, my son was given a boarding
pass, a pair of plastic wings, three airplane collecting cards and
sent along with us to board the plane. Hey, what about my safety
not to mention the safety of the nation? How could they force a
plane full of unsuspecting adults to fly in the company of a known
terrorist? Discreetly, the embarrassed agent advised me to check
in with an agent upon my return flight rather than experiencing
the futility of another e-check in.

Somehow
the flight made its uneventful way to Florida with my son aboard.
I must admit I was watching him much closer thanks to the government's
tip. In five days of sunshine, shell collecting and swimming, I
somehow managed to be lulled into a false sense of security about
my son. At one point he asked me, "Daddy, what does no-fly
mean?" (Oh yeah, play innocent with me!)

On
our return, I went to the agent at the counter and explained the
situation. He appeared not the least bit interested and sent us
on our way through the usual myriad of airport screening and on
to our gate. As my son boarded the plane, I felt the urge to blurt
out his status as a terrorist to permit others to save themselves.
The next thing I knew, the pilots had invited my son into the cockpit
for a nickel tour. He looked around with the wonderment of a child.
(Oh sure. Like you haven't already practiced hours on a simulator!)

I
guess it wasn't in the works that day. Perhaps my son had not been
given his secret command to attack. He chewed bubble gum, drew pictures
in his journal and looked endlessly out the window. The perfect
operative! Who would even suspect him?

Maybe
Tom Ridge, George Tenet or the thousands of federal agents in scores
of federal agencies know more than I about my son's secret life
at age seven. I feel so much safer now. Don't you?

May
4, 2005

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

Democracy
has come to Afghanistan, or so we are told.

Certainly,
many Afghanistanis registered to vote, participated in the election
and even voted for Karzai. What was their choice? The occupation
forces had made it clear that the Taliban and its sympathizers were
banned from participation. So, in this newly established u2018democracy,'
the people of Afghanistan were already being told who they could
not elect.

Once
again, the policies of the Taliban were undoubtedly abhorrent to
many in Afghanistan, just as the policies of the Bush Administration
are abhorrent to at least 48 percent of the Americans who voted
on November 2nd. However, our democracy allows us to
vote for anyone we choose. If he or she is not on a ballot, we can
even write them in. There is no exclusion of anyone based upon their
political beliefs or past practices.

Imagine
another nation, invading and occupying us, then establishing elections
in which it is illegal to vote for the Republican Party. (Hmmmm!)
Democracy? I do not think so. The same infirmity plagues Iraq's
coming elections. The occupation forces have already banned Iraqis
from voting for the Baath Party and certain religious parties. Ah,
the sweet smell of democracy!

Occupation
authorities would argue that no Afghanistani would vote for the
Taliban. This raises two issues. If nobody would vote for them,
why not allow them on the ballot? Many probably would not vote for
them simply out of an acute awareness of what state their nation
is in. It was invaded, destroyed and occupied because the Taliban
ruled. While the nation remains occupied, and perhaps for some time
thereafter, it is unlikely that Afghanistan will forget that the
Taliban equates with invasion and occupation. This is the lesson
we intended to send, and one that does not take great study to master.
Likewise, the people of Afghanistan are not likely to anger their
heavily armed u2018guests' by snubbing Bush's personal choice for President.

The
presence of high officials from the occupation forces, merely reinforces
the obvious — that Karzai is a puppet, hand-picked to serve the
best interests of those who displaced the Taliban and placed him
on the throne. He continues to be protected by occupation forces
and does not wander far from the comfortable confines of Kabul.

Is
Karzai the people's choice?

Was
Najibullah the people's choice in Afghanistan or Russia's? Dubcek
was the choice of the people of Czechoslovakia until Russian tanks
entered in 1968 to u2018liberate' the Czech people from his rule. Mosadeq
was the choice of the Iranians, but America knew better and placed
the Shah in his stead.

It
is a long and established tradition – democracy according to the
conquerors, not the conquered. So it goes in Afghanistan where,
despite the pomp and pageantry, nobody besides FOX is taking this
u2018election' seriously.

December
13, 2004

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

Unfortunately,
this scenario is played out all too often across the nation. If
these were the only facts, you might shrug with empathy and ask
yourself why this merits your consideration. This case was different.

In
this case, the police were present — not following the murder/suicide
— but before and during it.

Following
threats by her husband to her life and the lives of her children,
the woman went directly to the local police. She informed them that
she was in fear for her life and the lives of her children if she
tried to move out of the marital home. She informed the police that
her husband had a gun, had threatened her and her children that
day, and that she wanted to move out of the home. The police computer
confirmed a personal protection order had been issued by the court
against the husband.

The
police agreed to accompany the woman to her home and remain there
while she removed her personal belongings and her children. Two
officers accompanied her to her home and remained inside to the
end — the end of her life and her husband's.

Despite
encountering the husband, and having been apprised of all the facts
which led them to accompany the woman to her home, the police never
questioned the husband, segregated him from his wife or even bothered
to search him for a gun. They hung around and watched as the husband
followed his wife back and forth from the home to her car with her
personal belongings.

As
the police spoke with others in the house, the husband followed
his wife into her bedroom, closed the door and shot her. He then
shot himself. This was exactly what the wife had asked the police
to protect her from, and what they had agreed to do.

If
these police officers had been private security officers instead,
they and their employer would be held accountable in a court of
law under breach of contract or negligence theories. Alas, they
are government employees. The result is that they are not accountable
for their malfeasance or her death. This is what separates the private
sector from government.

Another
government branch — the courts — has decided that police are not
legally responsible for such gross failures. In Michigan, the state's
highest court has decided that individual police officers may not
be sued unless they are the only cause of the injury or death. This
special treatment is not available to those in the private sector.
In every case involving private individuals or companies, negligence
is assessed on the basis of each party's percentage of fault. Yet
another branch of government – the Michigan legislature – passed
a statute which grants absolute immunity to any municipality, thereby
barring any claim against the officers' employer. No such privilege
is available to private sector employers.

Faced
with these obstructions, the deceased woman's estate pursued a claim
against the officers' employer in federal court alleging that she
was deprived of her life without due process of law. On June 9,
2004 a federal judge dismissed the estate's case. The basis for
the dismissal was that, "a State's failure to protect an
individual against private violence simply does not constitute a
violation of the Due Process Clause." Coming from the
U.S. Supreme Court, this is the law in every state. This outrage
is compounded by the government's simultaneous efforts to prevent
citizens from taking any steps to protect themselves, and punishing
them when they do.

How
do you explain this state of affairs to the family of the deceased?
It was not easy. I was the attorney left with the task.

Writers
such as Steven Greenhut and Paul Craig Roberts have sounded the
alarm on this growing trend of law enforcement's lack of accountability,
but the truth is that most citizens actually believe that the police
are under some legal duty to come to your aid.

In
oral arguments before the federal court, I closed by noting that
if this is the state of the law in this country the courts should
require that all police vehicles be posted with a warning label
which reads: Caution: We are not required to protect you. Then,
I explained, we will at least know the truth, and be able to take
steps to protect ourselves.

The
next time you read the phrase To Serve and Protect on a police vehicle,
remember that this is government's motto about itself, not you.

June
24, 2004

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

The
military was merely the exterminator. They were not even aware that
the Hussein brothers were residing right under their noses, until
an Iraqi walked into the 101st Airborne office and told
them exactly where these two men could be found. Thirty million
for a pair of aces (ironically known as a pair of u2018bullets' in poker)
— now that Iraqi knew how to play cards!

Let's
get the rules of this unique card game straight. An American President
launches a military invasion and occupation of another country without
being threatened with an attack and without a declaration of war.
He establishes 52 of its leaders as targets (the cards). He gives
the military a green light to execute anyone in the deck. He offers
a price (the pot) for each card captured or killed. Then he holds
a press conference to gleefully announce each capture or execution,
but the winner of the u2018pot' is not disclosed. Hmmmm.

The
President should pray that this game does not catch on. How long
will it be before a nation such as Iraq or its leaders establish
their own deck of cards with commensurate rewards? At last check,
I did not hear any accusation that Udai or Qusai were a threat to
the national security of the United States. Bush did not even mention
them in his daily war promotions. Yet, through genetics, they were
labeled for execution. What if Iraqis who have been legitimately
threatened and murdered by U.S. policy decide that our politicians
and their families must go? What if large cash rewards are placed
upon their heads? How could the Administration be heard to complain
when they were the ones who invented this macabre game?

According
to the American military command, most of the deck has already been
captured, including many of the most treasured cards. Ironically,
and to Washington's private horror, the attacks on American soldiers
have not abated. In fact, they have grown in intensity and frequency
with the acquisition of each new card. It appears as though the
Iraqi resistance will not be bluffed out of the card game, and is
willing to play very high stakes.

Do
the Iraqis yearn for a return to the days of draconian rule under
the House of Hussein? Hardly. In fact, so despised were the now
departed brothers that it is almost inconceivable that anyone could
evoke anger over their deaths. Apparently, the only thing worse
to Iraqis than living Hussein brothers is the identity of their
executioners. Iraqis undoubtedly see the heavy-handed display of
American firepower as a painful reminder that they are not in control
of their own destiny. They resent the American military presence
and its over bearing approach to “democracy.” For Iraqis, the violent
destruction of the Mosul neighborhood housing Udai and Qusai, is
a metaphor for the daily destruction being wrought upon their country
by the U.S. Military.

True,
both Iraqis and Americans wanted the Husseins gone. The Administration
saw the Hussein family and the Baath Party as an obstacle to their
regional ambitions. The Administration could care less about the
fate of the average Iraqi. Iraqis saw the Husseins as their latest
persecutors and abusers. Despite the rose-colored prospectus of
Bremer & Company, there is no assurance that someone equally
brutal will not ultimately assume the power seat.

Will
the deaths of Udai and Qusai raise the stakes high enough for the
Iraqi resistance to fold? Doubtful. The week following the executions
has seen more American soldiers killed than in any previous week
of the occupation. More likely, the Iraqis will u2018call' this latest
assault and raise the ante for America. Even those who celebrate
the demise of these brutal brothers, do not wish to trade subjugation
by the Husseins for subjugation by a foreign army.

In
poker, a pair of aces is just not that strong of a hand.

July
30, 2003

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.

Over
the next several decades, the first objective of the newly formed
federal government would be the systematic decimation of all Native
American tribes. Through a combination of forced relocation and
armed assault, induced by treaties made-to-be-broken, the Indians
were eliminated or marginalized one nation at a time. As in present
day descriptions of peoples such as the Palestinians, the victims
were characterized as "savages" for resisting the government's
ethnic cleansing. (Despite contemporary warnings about biological
terrorism from the third world, it was the British who first used
smallpox as a weapon against the American Indians in the 18th
century.) These savages simply failed to grasp how we could help
them.

On
December 2, 1823, President James Monroe decided that hegemony over
the Indians of North America was not enough to secure the United
States. The Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed that America's vital security
interests would extend throughout the western hemisphere, where
the US government would be the final arbiter of what was acceptable.

Next
in line for elimination were the Mexicans. A steady stream of provocations
against the Mexicans culminated in the Mexican-American war of 1846,
which resulted in the federal government acquiring by force virtually
the entire southwestern portion of the current United States. Today,
Americans complain about the substantial presence of Hispanic peoples
in these same states, as if they were invaders from another planet

In
1861, the federal government would turn on its own. When southern
states threatened to secede from the union over the issue of states
rights, Washington sent its army south to reinforce the lesson that
disagreement with Lincoln's policies would not stand. Approximately
600,000 deaths and untold levels of destruction later, federal dominance
over the nation had been re-established.

We
characterize Saddam as a ruthless tyrant for doing exactly what
Lincoln and Grant had done a century earlier – using brute force
to end an internal rebellion and to teach a lesson so severe that
no group would ever again think of challenging central authority.

After
the blood had dried and "Reconstruction" had sufficient
time to take root, the federal government would seek out new frontiers
for U.S. military influence. Despite the deeply held anti-war sentiments
of its citizens, the federal government would inject America into
the wars of Europe twice within three decades.

Our
entry into World War I was premised upon lies and deceit, an approach
which would become a standard in all military involvements. Just
as the tragedy of 9-11 was used to generate American support for
the invasion of Iraq, the German sinking of the luxury liner Lusitania
with the deaths of 1,198 civilians was used to incite popular support
for war against Germany. Decades later the truth would finally surface.
The federal government incited the attack by using the Lusitania
to secretly ship munitions to England, callously using American
civilians as fodder.

World
War I featured the use of poison gas as a weapon of choice. Campaigning
for the moral right to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein, President
Bush's three-line mantra included the well-worn accusation, "He
gassed his own people." We were not so uncivilized. We only
used it to gas other people.

World
War I was "The War To End All Wars." America and Europe
would shape a perfect world from the ruins, and reap the spoils
of being victors. The desires of the people affected by this central
planning were irrelevant. After all, they were merely backward savages,
and did not understand how we could help them.

In
less than 25 years, the federal government would catapult a reluctant
America into the Second World War, or "The War To End All Wars,"
Part II. The war would end with Europe and other regions of the
globe shattered, fifty million people killed, economies in ruins,
and the United States government largely in charge. We would impose
military rule on Germany and Japan where thousands of American troops
still remain.

Another
excuse for invading Iraq was to prevent the development of nuclear
weapons. In World War II, the federal government would make America
the first (and still the only) nation in the world to use nuclear
weapons. It was so impressive the first time, we just could not
resist dropping another. Carnage, birth defects, and disease would
plague Japan for decades. As Defense Secretary Rumsfeld would note,
war is "untidy." Besides, these were backward savages.
This was our way of making their lives worth living.

In
the ensuing three decades the federal government would commit America
to fund and fight a Cold War (If you prefer, we could serve your
war hot.) with the Soviet Union, which involved us directly or indirectly
in scores of local conflicts and civil wars in the Middle East,
South America, Africa, and Asia. The Soviets would be taught the
same lesson that Lincoln taught the South — we have wealthier subjects
whom we can compel to fund our military than you do. Therefore,
you will lose. This was a central theme of the Reagan administration
which would propel the federal deficit to go where no other deficit
had gone before. This was all justified as a confrontation against
The Evil Empire.

Reagan
would also expand on America's self-proclaimed hegemony, announcing
that the Middle East was now added to those other unfortunate parts
of the globe which would be considered to be part of America's vital
national security. Translation: We reserve the right to invade if
necessary and impose military rule upon you. Was there anything
left?

Bush
I acted upon the Reagan Doctrine when he launched Gulf War I, formerly
known as Desert Storm, formerly known as Desert Shield. We simply
could not stand by while a corrupt, self-absorbed and insignificant
nation ruled by a monarch who was forced to forego his solid gold
toilet paper rollers to flee to Europe, was invaded by its neighbor.
Sure they had oil, but this was not about oil, the same way that
Annika Sorenstam's appearance at the Colonial Classic was not about
women's rights.

Under
eight years of Clinton, the federal government would project American
military force into Haiti, Somalia, and Yugoslavia. (Hey, we want
Europe to know we are still around.) We would also lob a few million
dollars worth of military explosives into Afghanistan, the Sudan,
and our old favorite, Iraq, just for good measure. Yeah, backward
savages.

Like
the second nuclear blast we delivered on Japan, we just could not
resist a sequel to Gulf War I. Americans love sequels. Enter the
prodigal son, who campaigned upon promises of smaller government,
less taxes, shrinking military involvement around the world, and
(read my lips) no nation building. We would get just the opposite.
Bush II would give us Gulf War II, later known as Operation Iraqi
Freedom (whether you want it or not), where he would try to make
his daddy proud.

Leading
up to the invasion, Bush met with disapproval from the United Nations,
his traditional allies, and the people of virtually every nation
in the world, including his own. Bush said he would not be influenced
by those pesky polls. Your President would take you into this war
because…well…because he wanted to.

Contrary
to the federal government's pre-invasion promises, the Iraqi people
did not greet American troops with flowers, the horribly out-matched
Iraqi armed forces did not stand down, oil fields were not set ablaze,
dams were not dynamited, no chemical or biological weapons were
used against our troops, and no weapons of mass destruction have
been found.

Instead,
Americans have been given a deck of playing cards and daily updates
on what a great job we are doing. A federal government which cannot
even run the District of Columbia, now endeavors to run a nation
whose language, culture, politics, religions, and currency system
are completely beyond its grasp. Within weeks, the miserable failure
of this approach has led to the sacking of the appointed "rulers"
and their replacement with more experimental bureaucrats. We have
liberated the Iraqi people. Yes, we have liberated them from any
semblance of order, from food, water, electricity, medical care,
and gasoline in a nation with the world second largest oil reserves.

What
did you expect? You must remember that the Iraqis are savages too.
These people are simply not like us. They may not realize it yet,
but they need our government to make their world proper. Right,
Chief Pontiac?

May
29, 2003

John
M. Peters [send him mail]
is a practicing attorney in Michigan.