British Red Coats call American Minutemen incompetent losers

The British Generals at the time argued, "They can't get this right."

Wellington reported, "We'll defeat them by lunch."

Are these quotes the same we hear in the 21st Century? The British Crown continued to receive reports, ". . . Two years in there hasn't been anything like any kind of political ideology or political spokesman or political wing emerging. It really is a nihilistic insurgency."

Stickers here:

British Redcoats continued to be sent to the Colony. "It makes it harder to eradicate the insurgency, but it also makes it more difficult for insurgents to gain their ultimate objective - if that is to control the country," he said.

But insurgents in the Colonies appear to be fighting for varying causes: Royalists are fighting for some sort of restoration of the old regime; Merchants are presumably fighting to prevent domination by the Aristocracy; nationalists are fighting to drive out the Crown; and foreign fighters want to turn the Colonies into a battlefield of a global religious struggle. Some men are said to fight for money; organized crime may play a role.

One philosopher stated, "If you look at 18th-century insurgencies, they all tend to be fairly coherent in terms of their ideology." "Most of the serious insurgencies, you could sit down and say, 'Here's what they want.' "

"This insurgency is something new."

To read the present day version of the American Revolution, go here.

Disclaimer The above quotes are falsely attributed to the British. They are actually quotes from the present day conflict in Iraq. The quotes were lifted from the NYTimes Article. Don't rely on this information for legal advice. This is for entertainment purposes only and should not be construed as anything that would encourage you to take action against the Americans or commit acts of violence. Talk to your lawyer! And if you're an American, get better lawyers. Gonzalez is a moron. If you're in DoJ, shame on you. You picked a stupid career, and you should have resigned when idiot-boy-Gonzalez got appointed. To all of DoJ and DoD: It was your choice to obey unlawful orders to [a] contribute to criminal enterprises that coverup war crimes; and [b] hide evidence about pervasive patterns of misconduct which violate the laws of war.

This explains why the Americans military personnel wear desert camouflage.

Discussion

The quotes show that the US is missing the point in Iraq. Just as the British underestimated the American Minuteman, so too is it clear the US commanders and White House have underestimated the resolve of the Iraqi freedom fighters:

American ground forces are insufficient;

The war is illegal, meaning: morally the Americans will not be able to sustain the needed momentum; and

The Iraqi freedom fighters are growing in strength.

The goal of this blogspot is to simply highlight the similarity between the British abuses which prompted the American Revolution/Declaration of Independence/Constitution; and the American treatment of innocent Iraqi detainees.

There is evidence showing the Pentagon had policies in place to not treat the Iraqis according to the Geneva Conventions. Rather, DoD's policy was that the detainees were "not prisoners of war but terrorists."

In short, America created excuses to "justify" torture and those policies violated the Geneva Convention. Through Article VI of the US Constitution, all military personnel are bound to uphold the Geneva Conventions.

US Military personnel are trained. DoD Directive 5100.77, updated in 1998 is a requirement on all DoD commanders to ensure there personnel are trained on the laws of war.

However, the President wanted to unlawfully treat all detainees as "terrorists," therefore [In his mind] there was "no reason" to ensure the interrogators were trained to conduct interrogations in an appropriate manner.

To support this allegation, DoD released additional information showing US military commanders, with full coordination with both the White House and the Pentagon:

Had policies in place to ensure that civilian non-combatants were held hostage, in violation of the Geneva Conventions;

Had a policy in place not to treat the detainees as prisoners of war, but as terrorists, and "justified" torture, violating the Geneva Conventions;

Knew that detainees were not being treated according to the Geneva convention and were actively involved in decisions to use unlawful torture;

Knew the DoD policies did not to follow the Geneva Convention and were not consistent with 5100.77; and

The policy remained in force and the conduct continued despite legal advice that the conduct could be grounds for a war crimes investigation.

Arguably, because the United States unlawfully launched the war in Iraq, those fighting the Americans are not terrorists, but freedom fighters.

Based on what I have read of the American Revolutions and the American War crimes in Iraq, and the false evidence for war, I remain confident that the vast body of international law sides with the Iraqi Freedom Fighters.

More bluntly, because the Americans have violated many articles in the Geneva Convention, the Iraqi freedom fighters cannot be held liable for similar violations.

Indeed, because of the speed of the invasion, the Iraqis cannot be expected to have an organized militia; thus under the principle of levee en masse they are arguably not required to carry their arms openly, nor do they have to be in uniform.

Clearly, such legal conclusions would remain up to the international courts to adjudicate in re war crimes. It remains to be seen which forces come to the aid of those fighting the Americans.

The longer this goes on, the larger the number of Americans who are involved.

Why do they want to pass the Patriot Act II letting the FBI have secret warrants without judicial oversight? They gather intelligence so they can put pressure on the public to keep quiet about the war crimes.

The Americans are just making this worse for themselves each day. They freely engage in this coverup, deception, and war crimes simply for a paycheck.

That is not integrity. That is lawlessness.

It remains to be understood through discovery, litigation, the media and others how this could continue.

Oaths of Office

We take oaths to affirm our actions and intent. They are to be taken seriously.

Why, despite taking oaths to preserve the constitution, have government personnel gone along with this charade of "democracy"?

It is curious that many, despite taking an oath to preserve the constitution and treaties, selectively pretend those rules do not apply, when they do.

Checks and balances

The purpose of having the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence, and Constitution was to check power. But those checks and balances must check the branches, not the people, otherwise we simply have three branches of tyranny with lawless momentum.

What checks and balances failed to ensure that the "justification for war" was based on facts, reality, actual threats?

Leadership that makes decisions based on innuendo is not leadership; it simply diverting attention from their own problems. Those unremedied management issues will spread like a cancer, pass other flawed policies, and make similarly flawed progress in other areas.

What checks and balances failed to ensure that combat forces were fully trained to engage in combat and lawfully treat prisoners consistent with the Geneva Conventions?

It is ridiculous that a nation freely chose to go to war, but was not prepared, its troops not trained; and despite the Geneva Conventions, the leadership and troops both collectively treated prisoners inhumanely.

More on checks and balances.

Evidence at the foundation of prudent policy

The Constitution outlines the reason for coming together is to do more as a group than we could alone.

How can a single leader drive a nation to war based on allegations and then get away with justifying torture simply because he accuses them of being a terrorist?

The US is marching down the road of simply accusing others without evidence to achieve political objectives. That is not lawful, democratic, nor consistent with the notion of "rule of law." Rather, that is tyranny.

National Security

Military forces can only do so much. It is likely a draft is coming. The US faces additional risks in that its forces are overseas, away from mainland.

If the United States loses the war in Iraq, or a second front opens up and the US military is defeated on the battlefield, is there a risk of a military coup in the United States?

The US doesn't have enough combat forces to wage war in Iraq and protect itself on a second front.

Constitutionally protected rights

We have open debate to arrive at prudent policy. Stifling debate and open discussion chills the free exchange of ideas. Self-evidently, when we use force, not logic we have imprudent policies.

Why should anyone believe that these same people who have lied would not similarly accuse "whomever they want" of being "terrorists" and lock them up?

They already used false evidence and "allegedly" committed perjury to "justify" arresting and convicting RNC demonstrators.

Applying the lessons

Recall what they said about the MI6 memo: The decision to go to war was already made, but the public statements and information cherrypicked to suit their end.

Keep that in mind. Consider another quirk. What is curious is that the United States said it should be "outside the ICC" because of the "lack of juries" for US soldiers; however, with the Patriot Act II, these same privileges for soldiers would be denied to the American public.

Why does the US say "We can't be part of the ICC because we want our soldiers protected," but then turns around and denies those same rights to American citizens?

Put another way, it inconsistent to use "we want to preserve law and order" in order to protect the troops, while the troops engage in misconduct; and at the same time then deny those same rights to the Americans with the Patriot Act II.

This smells more of the same inconsistencies highlighted in the MI6 memo: They said one thing publicly, but their actual reasons were related to something already decided. I suspect what is going on is the White House simply doesn't want to have any outside oversight of the military, regardless the American's lack of compliance with international law.

If the Americans were truly 'concerned" about the access to procedural rights, then there would be no discussion about destroying the IV Amendment, which guarantees through Article III Section 2 the right to a jury trial based on evidence gathered through warrants.

I suspect what's already been decided is: US troops will do whatever they like to impose their will on anyone and remain above the law; and the American citizens will be forced to put up with this; anyone who disagrees is going to be dealt with harshly.

That's the same as the Romans. [Yes, I know the quote wasn't originally written by Julius Caesar. That's another story.]