History making in Iraq

Can we look back on yesterday's election in a decade or two and draw conclusions from it?  Was it a culmination of a successful operation, or merely another false hope?

The problem with history is that we can never know what might have been had we not invaded. Maybe Iraq would have reformed and joined the family of nations. Maybe had we done nothing the middle east would have ignited into war with each other, choking off oil and driving the world into a depression. Maybe the war will have changed nothing, and we will have whatever, good or bad, that was going to occur.

Maybe defeating Hitler gave rise to monolithic communism and was a greater threat that lasted longer than the 3d Reich would have. Maybe if we had not fought in Vietnam, South Korea and Japan would have fallen to the Red Menace.  But we will never know what might have been. At best we think we know what was.

I think the best we can hope for is that we tried to do what was right and based our decisions on reasonable hypothesis for what might occur. 

HEADLINE: NASCAR Expansion Plan for Iraq

From AP:

The NASCAR franchise has expanded to compete with the younger generation fixation with extreme sports. NASCAR has a deal in principle with the new ruling elite in Iraq to allow NASCAR races that include snipers and randomly selected car bombs. In a tip to the 70's classic Death Race 2000, NASCAR intends to tally points not only for winning the race, but also for how many people the racer manages to kill along the way.

NASCAR spokesman Bill Bob Thompson says that they expect to be able to field a strong presence in Iraq as soon as the deal is inked, and said that many promising young racers have been gaining meaningful experience in Iraq for the past several years. Thompson said that several test runs have been held in secret and drivers and fans love the carnage.

MTV's X-Games producers are apparently eyeing the development with interest, and may try to develop its own war based X-Game if NASCAR X takes off.

Perfect Election? No. But it Still Matters

Regardless of who wins, today's election in Iraq is a resounding success for one big reason: It proves that the majority of Iraqi's want democracy and that they want it more than they are afraid of the insurgents. There can be no claim now that the insurgents represent the people, and the Blue Finger Brigade of over 8 million Iraqis have siezed the opportunity to peacefully show that the people are willing to risk everything for the future of their country.

I still believe that the first move of the new parliament should be to ask for an immediate reduction in US forces, and a timeline for withdrawal. Bush and company can proudly proclaim that we are there solely at the levels allowed by the new government, and will comply with the wishes of the new Iraqi government to pull out completely whenever they request. We will begin to leave, the new government will show independence and power, and insurgents will have no legitimate targets to kill.

There is still a long road ahead, and ten years of fledgling democracy with backward steps accompanying forward ones is inevitable, but I fail to see how democracy will be taken away again.

The next step is a Constitution that protects minority rights. Lets hope that they make the right choices, and I would suggest our Constitution (as originally designed) as a good model. Independent states with a central government for foreign matters and interstate issues, but with each province allowed to make and enforce laws as the province sees fit (but within the confines of a "bill of rights" for the individual). Over time, the provinces would likely be further integrated (see the EU) but it is unreasonable and futile to think that one nation with one set of laws will meet the needs of the various cultures in Iraq today.

It is very hopeful, but as a minimum it gives the US a reasonable exit strategy, and gets the US out of the way to allows the Iraqis learn to run a fair and free society.

Still Pro-War

I am still pro-war in Iraq. This is why:

We know that our policy of appeasement with bad and oppressive Arab governments for oil has been disastrous. We need to find a way to change those governments without pushing them into radical theocracy. Providing an example of successful democracy is necessary to prevent neighboring Muslim states from choosing Iran or Taliban-like governments in lieu of their monarchies.

Iraq was in a special status as a nation that the other "axis of evil" countries are not in. Iraq has invaded two neighbors, and has used WMD's. We believed that they still had them, and Iraq was required to provide proof that they had destroyed them. Iraq signed an agreement to end the previous gulf war that required that compliance. Iraq failed to comply. Even so, the other two parts of the axis are not forgotten. North Korea has other states around it that are powerful enough to counter potential aggression, and is not an Islamic state that sponsors the specific terrorism that we are encountering now. Additionally, North Korea is not sitting on Nexus of the life blood of the entire world economy. Finally, Iran is now bordered by two states occupied by the US and is contained in a way that it was not in 2002 (and it has a strong democratic movement on its own that intervention would cripple, not help).

I think it is clear that the 12 years of sanctions were not working to enforce the cease fire agreement. The sanctions were weakening without Iraqi compliance, and I think it is likely that the effect of sanctions over 12 years are qualitatively and quantitatively worse for the innocent Iraqi citizens than the war has been. Combatants have to have the right to enforce cease fire agreements, or the victor will not accept anything short of unconditional surrender. If even the United States cannot rely and enforce such agreements, why would some third-world country agree to one? Even simply as a matter of enforcing this agreement, I think we were justified in the attack.

I believe that even if it fails, the attempt to start a democracy in Iraq was the right move. True democracies do not invade other democracies (at least, I can't think of an example). I believe that it is possible that with democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, we could in the next decade possibly have a line of countries with half of the Islamic world in representative democracies. From Turkey, Iraq, Iran (which has the infrastructure for democracy now, just has to get rid of the ruling mullahs, and is possible), Afghanistan, Pakistan (which has had democracy, and can again), 200 million Muslims in India, and Indonesia. I think that would put incredible pressure on the rest of the Islamic world to start to change from their own populations, and that would be a good thing.

I think Iraq has an educated populous that is relatively industrious, and has a history of secular government and relatively good women's rights. It is closer to Turkey in temperament and history than Saudi Arabia. As a place to start seeding democracy in the middle east, Iraq is a good place to start.

In my mind, Bush has swung hard for the fence for a long term solution to middle east violence and oppression. I think it is going to work, but we won't know if it is truly successful for another ten years, or longer. Our own experiment in democracy fluttered along for 13 years before we even got our Constitution, and was probably not truly secured until after the Civil War. Expecting immediate results is unreasonable.

If ten years from now we all look back and say we failed, I will still support the attempt. There is no guarantee of success in world affairs, but continuing failed policies is a guaranteed failure.

Headlines

BBC Breaking News:

UN Leadership reflects on the U.S. election

Kofi Annan has been quoted as saying "with the reelection of George W. Bush, it is apparent that our attempts to influence American politics has failed." Sources within the UN, on condition of anonymity, have told the BBC that "Annan blames himself. He has ample evidence that the UN is useless and incapable of anything, and he should have hired a contractor to run the attempt to swing the election." Annan also noted that "at least now we don't have to suffer through Clinton running the UN when my term is up."

Reuters:

Federal Complaint Filed

Ohio Hacker Local 420 has filed a complaint with the EEOC that states that "the use of outsourced labor to electronically stuff voting machines violates federal law." The Local apparently has proof that their bid to stuff the electronic polling machines was undercut by an upstart Indian company, that charges only 30 cents per hour.

Local hackers are outraged. "We could have provided this service, and you can be damn sure that American craftsmen would not have been caught with such a stupid mistake as adding votes after the polls closed."

A spokesman for the Indian company has apparently pointed to the recent Day Light Savings time as the problem, and promised that they will address this issue in the future. "Who would have thought that Americans actually change the time of day? You guys are inscrutable," he said.

From AP:

Democrats apparently despondent over the change to electronic voting machines.


After 5 decades of refining the art of ballot box stuffing, Democrats are now playing catch-up with more savvy Republicans. James Thomas of Akron Ohio says "it is really just unfair. I showed up at the polling place looking like Sandy Berger with ballots stuffed in my socks, and the damn polling station looked like an ATM. The best I could do was shove them into the provisional box." Thomas' father Tony said "I just felt bad for him. This has been part of our Laborer Local's election day antics for as long as I can remember, and now James is losing his chance to carry on the tradition. What are the Republican's going to take away from us next?

Lisa Thayer, the Republican poll watcher at the precinct was sympathetic: " I know those guys put a lot of effort into turning the election, but you can't stop progress." Thayer also lamented that the Republicans have apparently outsourced the new electronic stuffing to India, saying "my little brother was ready and willing to crack the box, but we apparently found it cheaper to get help from India." Her brother has apparently already approached the Democratic party for next year.

AP:

New Rove Plan Unearthed

Canadians plan to block the border of all Americans due to Rove plan to swing Canada to the right. Rove has unleashed hundreds of thousands of right-wing activists to swarm Canadian cultural centers. American liberals fleeing the American election debacle are being caught in the dragnet, as Canadian immigration is unable to recognize liberal trademarks such as plastic shoes and unwashed hair.

The Rove plan is unlikely to work, however, because once in country his activists have been unable to identify any Canadian cultural centers, and apparently his operatives have also been co-opted by massive amounts of beer. Meanwhile, plastic-shoe wearing liberals at the border have run out of Chardonnay, and have no prospect for refill if and when they ever get past the border into the Great White North Land of Beer. They also have really cold feet.

Fat people are enviro terrorists:
"The obesity epidemic has unexpected consequences beyond direct health effects," said Dr. Deron Burton of the CDC. "Our goal was to highlight one area that had not been looked at before."

The extra fuel burned also had an environmental impact, as an estimated 3.8 million extra tons of carbon dioxide were released into the air, according to the study.

Bush's first pro environment action:

Perhaps we should release the EPA dogs in the grocery store...

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

TOLEDO, Ohio -- In an unprecedented move for licensed airwaves, Sinclair Broadcasting has made another last minute change to required broadcasting for its 62 stations. What Democrat spokesman Brian Van Lucen calls "a bold faced attempt to drive down democratic turnout," Sinclair has announced an 18 hour commercial-free Jerry Springer re-run marathon on November 2d. Beginning at 6 am EST, some of the best known episodes are expected have an average 16 share throughout most urban areas. Van Lucen indicated that party officials estimate that 12% of likely Democrat voters will find it nearly impossible to leave the house in order to vote.
This is not the first time that Sinclair has tried to influence the election, having recently aired an hour long anti-Kerry special. However, according to political science Professor Maxwell Turner at Ohio State University, this new attempt is much more insidious. According to Turner, Sinclair chose the one show that skews 95% Democrat, and will have a special effect on Ohio, Springer's residence and likely home for a bid for Senate next term.
Just throwing Ohio alone could turn the election, and with Ohio polling near even, the Springer broadcast has met howls of indignation from democratic operatives. Republican spokesman Mike Dickerson, however, was more philosophical. "Most states ban alcohol sales for election day, so this was the best we could do to keep unemployed people home on the couch" he said.

Okay, maybe they were not all real...

Best Off Road Vehicle Ever Made

Bad gas mileage though...

M1A1 Tank
Antagonist

Gas Subsidies for the World vs. Alternative Energy Subsidies

I don't think we need new taxes on energy to provide a financial incentive for alternative sources. I think we merely need to stop subsidizing the entire world's energy supply of oil. I think it is clear that only through the power and projection of US military force into the Middle East has oil been a continuous and reasonably reliable source of energy. Half of our military budget is spent on projection platforms to maintain sea lanes there. This allows oil to be a reliable and reasonably priced energy not just for us but for every country that imports energy. Why are we giving away the security for oil that our military provides to the rest of the world?

It is entirely foolish. Let the true price of oil bear the market conditions that would be if we did not spend 200 billion dollars per year on the flow. With oil at twice or three times the historic levels, alternative energy would not need subsidies to be cost effective, and over time with wide production would presumably be more efficient and therefore cheaper. The military savings from not having to screw around with the Middle East would be significant, and would offset somewhat the impact on the US economy giving us a competitive edge over other oil consumers who would bear the higher cost without any commensurate military savings to offset the new burden.

Not to mention the political and security benefit that we would get from not having to mess around with such a backward place like the Middle East.

Iraq Troop Strength and Options

Should we pull out of Iraq, drawdown, or stay the course?

Divisive Force and Initial Troop Strength

Is the American presence the problem now? Should we have started with more forces to prevent insurgency at the beginning? What would that have caused?

I agree with the point that we are a divisive force in Iraq at this point. But I also think that our presence was always divisive and destined to ignite some reaction from zealots. I would also argue that the siren calls that we do not have and have not had enough troops in Iraq miss this point. Had we put 400,000 men in Iraq, we would have looked more like a conquering army intent to stay, perhaps igniting an insurgency with wider support. I think the problem with starting with a larger force is that (particularly in an election year) there would have been no opportunity to draw down without cries that we were cutting and running. I agree that at the beginning of the war having a pincer movement coming from Turkey may have been nice, but I don't see how it would have made a great difference today, and we found that it was not necessary for a quick resolution to the major combat formations. And it was not sustainable, and we would have run out of forces to rotate much sooner.Besides that this was unsustainable and cause more turmoil even had we been able to do it, it would have reduced the need for the Iraqi's to get it together and field their own forces, which is the only way this experiment has a chance of working.

So long as the US is there to do the heavy lifting, the Iraqis won't. When we are gone, they will have to.

I disagree with some that Fallujah was a disaster. I think this is the type of mission that we can and should do, while patrolling and policing are not. There is a hard core center to the insurgency that will have to be met with force. It would be better if Iraqis did it, but they are not capable of it and won't be for some time (at least not without being much more brutal and indiscriminate than we are). Leaving safe havens for insurgents to operate openly is demoralizing to the general population and makes it more difficult for the emerging government to claim any legitimacy. But the general policing and security can be done by the Iraqis.

I do agree that the neighboring countries do not want anarchy there after we leave (even if they want to make it as hard as possible while we are there to keep us out of their countries), and the sooner we pull out, the sooner those countries will have to step up to help Iraq survive, or face anarchy at home.

I suggest that we draw down to a force capable of defending Iraq against neighboring countries intent on taking land or revenge, and to do major operations like Fallujah, but leave all policing and security operations to the Iraqi forces. I would think 50,000 would do more than enough for this mission, and this would be sustainable for the long haul.


Comparison with other Occupations

One of the realities of this war is that since it was so bloodless during the invasion, so many potential insurgents survived. Contrasting with Germany or Japan (as all occupation discussions seem to have to do) where entire generations, especially young males, were decimated, the Iraqis just have a greater potential pool for insurgency. While presumably in the long run having those males available to rebuild the country and economy is in the interest of Iraq, it is in my opinion the main reason that the insurgency is so strong when compared historically.

Clearly there was a reasonable hope that by limiting the killing of the Army we would have an easier time "winning hearts and minds," and perhaps that was true (in that even today 80% of Iraqis seem to desire the emerging democracy). But having no men aged 15 to 30 would make insurgency pretty hard to sustain.

I am glad that we did not have to kill the entire Iraqi army in order to occupy, but in my mind this more than anything else left the insurgency so vital. It is also the future of our wars, I think, so learning to deal with the aftermath is a key lesson learned for going forward.


Leaving the Iraqi Military in Charge

I have read some articles about the professional military class in Iraq and how they would be effective in Iraq had we not disbanded the Army. Perhaps disbanding the army contributed to the current instability, but I am not sure that had we left the army intact that we would not be sitting here today saying that leaving this Baathist powerhouse intact is what prevented the Shiites from joining the government, rather than the minority Sunnis.

What is interesting about promoting the combat experience of any Iraqi force is that you have to look at that experience. Either they have experience with indiscriminate killing of civilians and destruction (either with Saddam or with the insurgents), or losing to Americans.

Whenever we pull out, we will be leaving behind a force that is only effective when it kills and destroys civilians but cannot fight actually trained and equipped forces. Even if the good guys end up winning, it will be extremely bloody, and there will be no attempt to avoid civilians.

The best we can hope for is to limit how bad that will be, but I suspect that after the elections the Shiites will take off the gloves, and the Sunnis will be run out.

Conclusion: Draw Down is best Option

I think we should reduce troop strength after the election to a force capable of protecting Iraq from outside forces, and to eliminate strongholds of Iraqi Insurgents when they are identified, but not so much that we are the defacto police force and face of the government. We should pull out of the cities and set up bases in the desert that are defensible without a lot of collateral damage. We should use our UAV's and air and helicopter support to help the Iraqi governmental forces, but reduce the number of American troops involved in ground warfare. I think this is the best aid we can give the Iraqi's, and maintain the reduced collateral damage that our style of warfare allows, while making the Iraqis do the heavy lifting of policing and security.

Military Discrimination and Law Schools Banning Recruiting

The military has policies that discriminate based on many things, not just sexual orientation. You can't be too old, too young, too fat, too thin, too sick, color blind, too weak, too dumb, physically or mentally handicapped, need medication such as ritalin, and for many jobs, female. Someone with asthma but no overt symptoms can be excluded solely based on one doctor's note in medical records. You can even be discriminated against for serving too long, or not getting promoted fast enough. I was not eligible for a JAG program because I had served as an officer for 6 years before applying (the cutoff was apparently 5 years). Most of the above areas will not prevent a lawyer from doing his job well, and therefore can not be supported as legitimate reasons to exclude.

I think that the law schools need to be more intellectually honest about discrimination policies. Discrimination is wrong, and they should attack the military on all fronts where it discriminates, not just one pet area for political purposes.

Death Penalty and the Conservative View

My biggest problem with the death penalty is not that I care about the rights of a murderer, or whether it is a deterrent, or how much it costs. I simply do not trust our government enough to decide life and death. Just like I don't want the government to be in charge of my health care, retirement, or sexual choices, I don't want the government to choose life and death, where the inevitable mistake is one that can never be corrected.

I have never understood why those with a view of government as being inept, corrupt, and parochial would then insist that it should have the power to kill.

Reserve readiness

Having completed a Soldier Readiness preparation this weekend with about 200 other reservists waiting on activation, I disagree that the Reserves are not trained and ready for war. The example of the Reserve unit that refused to deliver fuel is on my mind.

Most of the reservists I have known as well as those this weekend had spent significant time on active duty. Half of the reservists this weekend had been deployed before in prior conflicts. Individual skills are not lacking (though PT was lacking for some of them). Many of the soldiers have civilian jobs that directly apply to their military specialist (such as truck driver, mechanic, police officer, logistics engineer, etc). The reserves also bring significant civilian experience to planning and decision making that active duty units lack, giving a broader expertise base to address new situations such as faced in Iraq. For example, in one meeting of eight officers, we had a Boeing aerospace engineer, attorney, thoracic ICU nurse, combat simulations expert, teacher, and a banker. The other two were full time reservists. All had at least 5 years active duty (and most more), but then had civilian experience that the nation building mission can use. Generally, similar active duty units would have had more military experience, but little real world experience that can be used to build Iraq.

Reserve equipment does tend to be older (and so are the soldiers), and abused. I think this is reasonable and not unexpected. Even in the active forces, different units have varying qualities and generations of equipment. We did not field the M1A2 tank to every division on the same day. It takes years for equipment fielding to be completed. When the Marine Corps (active) showed up in the First Gulf War with M60A3 tanks, the entire Army had already been through 2 rounds of fielding of the M1 series tanks (either M1, M1IP, M1A1, or M1A1DU). By that time, even much of the Army National Guard had M1 series tanks, yet the Active Duty Marines had 1970's technology. So, it is not simply the Reserves that are on the short end of the stick for equipment, and it is not a surprise that the active Army gets first pick.

Reserve units do have enough time to maintain basic military skills and small unit tactics, and we do practice combat resupply and combat route reconnaissance. It is not the same level as active duty, but every unit must train for and pass a validation before deployment (which is a fairly difficult task). Individual soldiers are mobilized quickly, but units typically have time to recertify unit level tasks before going in. The Washington National Guard Brigade had 3 months to perform this training and validation prior to deployment, and they have apparently acquitted themselves well in Iraq (now 6 months in country). What we do not have time to do is train higher level staffs competently. I believe Reserves are best used to augment and work for active duty units that do have competent higher staffs and assets for force protection.

Reservists are volunteers, are fully aware that they can expect to be mobilized for at least one year out of every five, and yet they stay and reenlist because they believe in the mission and their comrades. As in any organization, you can have a confluence of personalities and leadership that leads to melt down, as in the example where the Reservist unit did not perform the refuel mission, but it is not an indictment of the reserves. It merely shows how professional and able the rest of the Reserves and National Guard have been in these two conflicts.

Military Humanitarian Aid: Cost effective?

It seems as though an Aircraft Carrier is the best platform available for a lot of the aid missions that need to go on, but isn't it a grossly wasteful way to provide that aid? Wouldn't it be interesting, economical, and possibly beneficial to our image if we had a dedicated platform that is similar to an aircraft carrier in scale but with out the extra sailors necessary to provide strictly military missions (such as the jets and support, anti submarine staff, armaments, etc).

I would think that there are enough tragedies around the world annually to keep such a vessel in use, and would (as we see here) provide an instant working platform to deliver aid that is not going to be hampered by terrain, guerillas, and refugees?

I would bet we could take a carrier out of mothball, convert it to peaceful use (and helicopter and cargo plane only), and use it as our sailing ambassador to tragedies around the world. It would be cost efficient (assuming instead we are using full carriers + support fleet instead), would not have the problem of having "foreign troops" delivering aid, and would not take our aircraft carriers away from defensive missions or actuall wartime use. Perhaps a floating peace corps could operate it.

I think it would be something that only the US really has the resources to provide, and would have significant benefits besides the obvious one of effective relief.

Bad Intel, No UN Support, Bad War

We went to war in Kosovo without UN support, with bad intelligence, and we probably killed as many Serbs as Kosovar Albanians were killed by Serbs prior to the war. The UN was never going to support Kosovo, so we bombed without it. There was no threat to us, and the suffering of the Kosovar Albanians was no worse in comparison to the Iraqis.

The actual numbers of pre-war dead in Kosovo are relatively low, but first I think you have to ask yourself how many people you assumed had been killed before we got involved. Estimates of dead before we bombed ranged up to 100,000 (from Defense Secretary Cohen). Actual body count has it at about 4,000 (almost all military age men, but some women and children), with a possible 3,000 officially missing (still almost all men). Tragic, for sure, but it is not genocide. Then the question is is it justified to pre-empt genocide? In any event, even the numbers proposed by Cohen pale compared to the number dead from Saddam. After Kosovo, the US had a virtual news blackout in major media, but I did find this to explain the contention from reasonably reliable sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/columns/fl.mariner.kosovo.06.20/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/781310.stm

And this post lists news articles from the 80's, when the Kosovar Albanians were the bad guys:
http://www.kosovo.com/press1980.html

I also found this interesting. This is the 1999 SOTU speech from Bill Clinton concerning Kosovo, and his justification for it:

All Americans can be proud that our leadership helped to bring peace in Northern Ireland. All Americans can be proud that our leadership has put Bosnia on the path to peace. And with our NATO allies, we are pressing the Serbian government to stop its brutal repression in Kosovo, to bring those -- thank you, thank you, to bring those responsible to justice and to give the people of Kosovo the self-government they deserve.

Sounds like we were bombing them into democracy to me, but I find it interesting that a place that we were to bomb incessantly for 79 days a few months later gets practically nothing from Clinton in the speech. At least George was focused on his preemptive war. And of course, Kosovo is not a raging democracy yet either.

And, "successful" Kosovo today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3928153.stm

Kosovo was a preemtive war with bad intelligence, no UN support, and no resolution.

Gun Control is States' Right

The second amendment prevents the federal government from infringing on the right to bear arms, but has no impact on state regulation. The Founding Father's neven intended to prevent state regulation of arms within the borders of a state. Strict constructionists should recognize that if you want to rely on what the founder's intended, individual states can disarm their populations. Since the Supreme Court has not incorporated the 2nd amendment to apply to the states as it has with some other rights in the bill of rights, the second amendment is not a barrier to regulation at the state level.

Even the First amendment was not applied to the states until 1925 in Gitlow. Prior to that, states had all kinds of laws that prevented speech, particularly laws that made it illegal to criticize leaders and judges.Incorporation is the term that the SCOTUS uses when it applies the bill of rights to state action. What it means is that the due process clause of the 14th amendment applies some of the bill of rights (such as speech and trial by jury for serious crimes) to state action. It is the selective incorporation doctrine because not all of the bill of rights is applied. The second amendment is one of them. Prior to the 14th amendment, the bill of rights was never applied to the states. It took activist judges to decide that the 14th amendment means more than was plain on its face (ie, determine that due process means bill of rights-one argument at the time was that it meant state action could not be capricious or arbitrary, but not specifically required to follow the bill of rights), and it took 100 years for the doctrine to evolve to the point that most americans assume that the entire bill of rights are applied to state action.

The Supreme Court uses the "selective incorporation doctrine" of the 14th amendment in expanding the bill of rights to include state action, and has not applied this doctrine to the 2d amendment.
Similarly, other rights in the bill of rights have not been incorporated:
1st Amendment: Fully incorporated.
2nd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision on incorporation since 1876 (when it was rejected).
3rd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision; 2nd Circuit found to be incorporated.
4th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
5th Amendment: Incorporated except for clause guaranteeing criminal prosecution only on a grand jury indictment.
6th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
7th Amendment: Not incorporated.
8th Amendment: Fully incorporated.

1925: In Gitlow v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds under the New York criminal anarchy statute Gitlow's conviction for writing and distributing "The Left Wing Manifesto." The Court concludes, however, that the free-speech clause of the First Amendment applies to the states through the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

1931: In Near v. Minnesota, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates a permanent injunction against the publisher of The Saturday Press. The Court rules that the Minnesota statute granting state judges the power to enjoin as a nuisance any "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical" is "the essence of censorship." The Court concluded that the primary aim of the First Amendment was to prevent prior restraints of the press. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=First_Amendment_timeline

I also think that the fact that States were passing or modifying their own Constitutions at the time and included the right to bear arms (and speech, etc) would indicate that at the framing, the states did not believe that the bill of rights applied to state action.

The proper place for the assault weapons ban and other gun control is at the state house. Though many states have state constitutions that protect gun ownership as well, those constitutions can be changed much more readily than the federal one. Those who want gun bans should concentrate their efforts where it will matter and can occur, not at the federal level where it is impractical and should require a constitutional amendment.

Torture in Iraq: Why we should not do it.

There may be tactical justification for torture in some cases, but it is almost never justifiable strategically. The US loses much more than a few points in world opinion polls. Some of the justification used is that it is necessary for key information, humane treatment won't work with zealots, and that the enemy does not respect the conventions, so we don't have to either. I don't believe these hold up against US strategic interests.

I think the main flaw with an eye for an eye attitude (that they don't comply with the conventions, so why should we) is the respective goals of the 2 forces in Iraq. Our mission is to stabilize and their mission is to destabilize. Torture and random killings is a great way to destabilize. It is not a great way to get a population to trust you to do the right thing, particularly when you are a foreign force. Humane, civilized treatment during the occupation in Japan was able to overcome even though there was a core group who were willing to be suicide attackers (kamikazes), and the Japanese Army was as ruthless as any in the last century. Certainly there was a higher percentage of Japanese who had lost a member of the family during WWII than is true in Iraq. Showing a humane face during occupation in my mind helped prevent long term insurgency within Japan, and allowed democracy to come to fruition. Japan certainly had the capacity to make that occupation miserable, but American forces did their best to not give them a reason to. The vast majority of Iraqis (according to polls) want to vote and have a government of their choosing. Keeping this majority on the side of democracy is the center of gravity for our mission, and losing it is losing the war.

Another argument is that humane treatment won't work to influence zealots. However, all accounts indicate that the people who are beheading and suicide bombing are a small group numbering in the thousands. The entire insurgency numbers around 200,000. It is the vast majority of the enemy that we would seek to influence, not the core group of zealots.

Rigidly applying the Geneva Conventions is a combat multiplier and saves lives. It aids in all future fights with the enemy. When the enemy is reasonably sure that he will be treated well when captured, he is much more likely to surrender rather than fight to the death. American casualties always mount during mopping up of enemy combatants.

Reciprocity is not a real issue. We don't want reciprocity for our combat effectiveness (though we would certainly appreciate it for captured soldiers). American soldiers know that they will be burned at the stake, beheaded, or dragged through the street if captured. Because of this, American soldiers continue to fight against incredible odds (think Blackhawk Down). If there was a reasonable expectation of three hots and a cot, and a later prisoner exchange, American soldiers in impossible positions probably would be willing to surrender. Instead they almost invariably fight to the death rather than surrender. This was not always true when fighting civilized enemies. Tthe treatment of American soldiers at the hands of various enemy forces has certainly cost America's enemies much more in lives in the long run than it has cost the US.

Now, the propaganda machines of the enemy can show what happens to those who surrender to Americans, just as our soldiers know what will happen to them if they surrender. Regardless of how often or how painful the treatment was, we know that some people were beaten and killed, and the enemy knows it as well. Many will likely to choose to fight and die rather than be stacked naked with electrodes attached, or beaten to death in prison.

The canard about getting information that will save lives fails to account for the reality that losing the combat multiplier of the Geneva Conventions costs more lives than whatever information gained is likely to save. Rooting out individuals from the rubble who might have otherwise surrendered but now prefer to die rather than be captured is the most intensive and dangerous fight we can face, and the most likely to continue to costs American lives. Think of Japanese sodiers in caves on Pacific Islands and the terrible cost in lives that we incurred. This is not going to be our last war, so even if it was true that in this circumstance torture and inhumane treatment would be more successful in ending the war or gaining key information, it does not account for the loss of lives in future wars due to the enemy not being willing to surrender for fear of expected treatment in American custody.

During the first Gulf War and in the early stages of this war, we saw that the Iraqi Army would surrender, sometimes en masse. Many of these same people are the ones we are fighting now. I believe that the potential of torture in American hands has changed this dynamic, and we will lose a lot of soldiers because of it.

Torturing prisoners is not only illegal and immoral: it is stupid, and harms US strategic interests far beyond public opinion polls.