October 2018

Putting Military at the Border is Well Within Trump’s Authority
Bob Barr
Townhall.com

As Beltway Theater goes, a slow-moving caravan of defiant Central American migrants heading towards the United States border could not have been scripted any better for the midterm elections. Though more than 1,000 miles away, with an anticipated arrival still weeks away, the narratives from each side of the aisle were quickly brought to the stage and performed with all the dramatic aplomb we have come to expect from the D.C. box-office trying to sell election votes as if they were the hottest ticket in town.

Yet, from among the usual cries of “ISIS hiding among the migrants” and “Republicans are racists for demanding border security,” there are actual issues meriting a far more serious discussion than typically offered in the immigration debate; in particular, what powers does a president legallypossess to secure the border against such hordes?

At first blush, it may seem obvious that the president could, and perhaps should, have broad latitude to secure America’s borders; including, as President Trump announced this week, sending the military to the border to serve as needed. However, the doctrine of posse comitatus, codified into the 140-year-old The Posse Comitatus Act, makes this option less clear than conventional wisdom might suggest. Though brief in length and relatively unknown by most Americans, the law is an important safeguard against domestic military occupation; making it unlawful for anyone — not just the president — to use the “Army” (meaning, in modern times, any branch of the military) to “execute the laws” unless “expressly” authorized by law or the Constitution.

Since its enactment, Congress has allowed for few exceptions to the Act; for example, the military providing equipment and expertise to fight the drug war, or previous uses of the military at the border in non-combative support roles. These are not exceptions taken lightly, and history and experience have taught us to be very careful with expanding the definition or use of the military for law enforcement purposes; as I and others noted clearly during the Waco hearings, in debates regarding the USA PATRIOT Act, and elsewhere over the years in the post-9/11 “Security State” environment. Nevertheless, deteriorating conditions at America’s border presents new territory for this old law.

As such, the question we must now ask is whether protecting the integrity of America’s borders against specific threats is a fundamental responsibility of the president, and if using the military to assist in doing so, is a proper exercise of serving as the “commander in chief” as per Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. I would argue strongly it is, and if Trump’s decision to use armed forces at the border is to protect it, rather than supplement the enforcement of immigration laws, his order this week would not fall within the law’s prohibition.

While the flow of immigrants into the U.S. is rightfully within Congress’ legislative purview (as much as the Obama administration worked to side-step it, hence the mess we are in now), the actual defense of the border, especially in specific instances of direct threats to its integrity, would fall to the president, and in some cases, the governors of border states (under their police power and use of their National Guard units). Different from the long standing conversation about border security generally, thousands of migrants traveling en masse is an entirely different issue with greater national security implications. The circumstances here change from a simple immigration enforcement question (not to mention how, exactly, crime and economic problems in foreign countries are legitimate grounds for granting asylum), to one of genuinely defending the border against a specific threat.

Actual defense of the border, the issue at hand today, is not about immigration directly, but properly ensuring a country’s safety jeopardized by allowing anyone (migrants, gang members, or terrorists) and anything (drugs to disease) unfettered access into our country. Though the caravan of migrants is not the  “invasion” some on the Right have made it out to be, it does represent a very real and serious threat to the U.S. by putting our border security at risk and in the global spotlight; a threat that would, if unchecked, serve as an example to others that regardless of intent, to enter the United States one need only swarm it.

Members of the military should not be checking papers and processing migrants; but rather, serve as an impenetrable shield and check against potentially hostile crowds who would see to overrun our struggling Border Patrol, as a tactic to seek entrance into this country not through legal means, but literal force. Is this not precisely what “national defense” means?

There is, of course, the possibility that the military may not be needed at all, or at least not for an extended period of time. Mexico may, in the end, step in and stop the caravan as they too are facing similar issues as the U.S.; not to mention the simple fact of geography and weather may take a heavy toll on the migrating mass and force many to turn back.  But it would be irresponsible for the president not to make contingency plans.  A preemptive decision by Mr. Trump, in consultation with Congress and the Justice and Defense  Departments clearly laying out the President’s ability to legally use the military at the border, would help prevent more serious problems if and when the crowds arrive, and would set an important precedent for the future.

US Must Keep Khashoggi Murder in Perspective
Townhall.com
by Bob Barr

It’s a brutal world out there.  Countries do horrible things.  Government officials often are complicit.  If America’s relations with countries around the world were predicated on dealing only with those whose record of respecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mirrored ours, the number of flags exhibited at the State Department’s Hall of Nations would be small indeed.

And yes, even journalists at times find themselves on the wrong end of a government that does not abide by our legal and moral standards; it’s happened over the years in Central and South America, Eastern Europe, Russia, China, the Middle East, and elsewhere.  Such apparently happened to Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi shortly after he entered his nation’s consulate in Istanbul, Turkey earlier this month.

As the evidence of his grotesque murder mounts, the question for the United States is how should our nation react; what should we do in response?

Some in Washington clamor for drastic measures, up to and including a serious reevaluation and down-grading of our longstanding diplomatic, economic, security and national defense relationship with Riyadh. Others counsel silence.  The appropriate response lies somewhere in between; but tempered by the fact that this horrible incident has little if anything to do with the United States directly.  It is, at its core, a crime by Saudis against a Saudi.  There simply is no vital U.S. national security interest at stake.

So what should be done?

First, our policy makers in Washington need to ascertain the facts.  Considering our intelligence capabilities are at least as good as Turkey’s (after all, we largely trained them), this should not be difficult, and likely already has been accomplished.  Next, our Middle East experts need to carefully assess how this murder will affect the Saudi governing regime domestically within the Kingdom, and abroad, especially its geographic neighbors.   Decisions about the particulars of our bilateral relations with Saudi Arabia necessarily need to factor in those elements.

Following these assessments, Trump administration officials must make clear to their counterparts in Saudi Arabia that engaging in such actions as the murder of a well-known journalist with connections to the United States, will in fact undermine our relations with that country.   It is important to make clear that if the murder reflects a pattern or is repeated, it may very well result in serious adverse consequences in areas of bilateral interest; including military.

Additionally, this event should strengthen our resolve to ensure that all our military, economic and diplomatic “eggs” are not placed in one “basket” (namely, Saudi Arabia) in the region.  And, securing commitments from other allies in the area that such behavior as apparently engaged in by the Saudi government against Khashoggi will not be practiced by these other countries, and rewarding such commitments with enhanced ties, will serve us well and send an important message to Riyadh.

Finally, the administration must take the lead in tamping down cries for cutting off military or financial ties between ourselves and the Saudis.  Democrats predictably call for such drastic measures; but Republicans chiming in only weakens Trump’s hand to practice hard-nosed, “politics among nations” based on our country’s strategic interests, and accomplishes nothing of positive or long-term value.

If this tragedy forces the U.S. to take a realistic but measured assessment of our dealings with allplayers in this region, some good may come of it.  But those employing the Bully Pulpit of a congressional seat or a media outlet to demand short-term and drastic measures in response to what appears a singular criminal act by another nation, would be a serious mistake with long-term consequences — a situation far too-oft repeated by the United States in dealings with that part of the world since the end of World War II.

The Frankenstein Unleashed by the Democratic Party Threatens Us All
Townhall.com

Bob Barr
10/17/2018 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr

To most Americans, a large group of black-clad individuals blockading the streets and harassing motorists who disobey their commands would, quite naturally, be considered a mob. This also would be an apt and reasonable name given to groups of people stalking and screaming at others dining in a restaurant, destroying public monuments, or throwing Molotov cocktails in protest of speakers at a college campus. After all, by definition, a mob is “a large and disorderly crowd of people,” especially those “bent on riotous or destructive action”; and, these incidents are such examples.  As we lawyers say, res ipsa loquitur, “the matter speaks for itself.”

The problem is, the Mainstream Media and congressional Democrats are not most Americans. In their Liberal La-La Land, like at CNN, one dares not speak “the ‘M’-word” (“mob”) when commenting on events such as these.  To these pundits, those roaming gangs and shouting crowds are not mobs, but merely concerned citizens understandably “motivated” by the dangerous actions of the Trump Administration.

Herein lies the existential crisis for Democrats, and the dirty little secret they refuse to acknowledge openly — is mob rule what Democrats have become?  And is it what our country is becoming?

Since their 2016 trouncing, Democrats have strayed far from their Party’s traditional bread and butter issues like education and civil rights; pursuing instead a strategy exclusively focused on stoking emotional outbursts from their base. We hear less and less from Democrats about specific policy solutions for how they will fix anything, and increasingly more paranoid shouting that “people will die” with every move Trump and the GOP make. Therefore, in whatever twisted logic now passes for strategy in the Democratic Party, if every Trump decision is a death blow to something or someone, then aggressive resistance is an appropriate, if not a “morally imperative,” response.

This sheer lunacy, echoed by elected Democrats back to unhinged activists who believe Trump is responsible for even the most petty of offenses (like a toddler being knocked over), not surprisingly has morphed into the political upheaval we see today. Refusal by Democrats to accept this reality is akin to Dr. Frankenstein losing control over the monster he created; but in this, the very real world of 21st Century America, their antics put real people and real property at great and immediate risk.  This is no 19th Century novel or mid-20th Century Hollywood movie.
Scenes from the streets of Portland this month, where masked ANTIFA cowards took over the streets and battered motorists who dared defy them, were gut-wrenching to watch. More pathetic still was to see Portland’s Mayor Ted Wheeler roll-over and surrender to the mob overtaking his city. Unfortunately, Wheeler is not the first Democratic local leader trying to pacify violent leftists by giving them “space.”  U.C. Berkeley let the mobs roam free without police intervention, as did the mayor of Charlottesville during the Unite the Right rally and counter-protests last year.

These protestors, however, as vapid as their political arguments may be, are not the stupid ones; Wheeler and his hand-wringing colleagues are. By abdicating their sworn duty to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens from mob violence, these poor excuses for elected leaders not only endanger their constituents but undermine the very fabric of a civilized society.  The message their passivity conveys clearly to the mob is weakness and tolerance; which, as is well-understood by responsible parents, simply encourages more bad behavior.

The chaos countenanced by the Wheelers in positions of authority is made worse still when police chiefs order their officers to stand down and simply watch the looting and violence. Complicit also are local prosecutors who refuse to charge those responsible.  How long before mobs shouting down United States Senators and their spouses at restaurants, in airports, or at their own homes, gives way to throwing objects instead of epithets?

Whether voters will be as stupid as these elected and appointed officials, remains to be seen; but we will learn much in answer to that question when the votes are in on November 6th. Nonetheless, the muted reactions to the goings on in Portland, the cheers a rant by Rep. Maxine Waters provokes, and the applause a childish antic by “Beto” O’Rourke receives, offer clues as to where many Democrat voters seem to be headed.

God help us if a majority of voters in key congressional districts, and in states with Senate seats and governorships up for grabs, vote with these mob enablers.

Trump’s Iran Strategy Far More Likely to Succeed Than Obama’s
October 10, 2018, 12:05 am
by Bob Barr
The American Spectator

For one thing, the current president isn’t inclined to prop up the mullahs.

On three occasions in the past eight decades, Iran has served as a turning point for America’s strategic global interests. Now, as the Trump Administration turns up the pressure on the Islamic Republic, it appears the country may once again become a fulcrum for our country’s strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond.

The first time modern Persia found itself in a key global position was in the immediate aftermath of World War Two, when the Soviet Union’s imperialist designs were focused on Iran’s already well-known oil reserves, and access to the country’s ports on the Persian Gulf. The United States and Great Britain teamed up to ensure that they, and not the USSR, held sway in Teheran after the defeat of the Axis powers. For the next three decades Iran served as a key military and economic ally to the United States; providing a steady supply of oil, and invaluable intelligence on Soviet missile technology captured from listening posts in northeastern Iran overlooking the Caspian Sea.

That important bilateral modus operandi disintegrated in 1979 with the overthrow of the pro-American Shah, and the installation of what quickly became a regime controlled by a cleric-based Supreme Council headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The subsequent rise of militant Islam as a force not only in Iran but throughout the region, from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan, became a force that has dominated much of America’s global strategy for the past four decades.

Since 1979 and over the course of six American presidencies from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama, policymakers at the White House, on Capitol Hill, in the Pentagon and at Foggy Bottom have struggled — unsuccessfully — to deal with the successive religious regimes governing the Islamic Republic. On-again, off-again financial and economic sanctions have largely failed in their goal of forcing Tehran to negotiate seriously with Washington. The low point of this multi-decade comedy of errors was the 2015 decision by the Obama Administration to lend America’s imprimatur to the Iran Nuclear Deal, formally known by its bureaucratic nomenclature, the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.”

The Obama Administration’s diplomatic endeavor was led by Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, who between them exhibited less understanding than college freshmen, of the forces of Realpolitik that for centuries has undergirded the principles and processes by which nation states operate. The duo deemed the 2015 JCPOA a step essential to bring the Islamic Republic into the family of nations governed by our norms of behavior.

So rigidly focused on appeasement diplomacy was the Obama Administration, however, that it lost a chance six years before signing the JCPOA that, had it been handled with understanding, finesse, and commitment, would have born far more tangible and positive results than a dozen nuclear deals.

For it was in 2009 that genuine, popular dissatisfaction with the cleric-led regime in Tehran, spear-headed by Iran’s highly educated and largely secular middle class and student sectors, came remarkably close to forcing a real change in the country’s governing structure. Simplistically referred to by Western media as the “Green Revolt” or “Iran Spring,” this upheaval was tamped down by the governing Khamenei regime employing extensive police and military power.

The Obama Administration had considered offering tangible support for the reform movement, but in the end deemed such a move at odds with the nuclear “deal” strategy being pressed on Washington by our European allies. Obama’s predisposition, as usual, was to use traditional diplomatic niceties in dealing with Iran, rather than the carrot-and-[hard] stick approach that demonstrably and historically has proved far more beneficial to us when confronting stubborn adversaries.

Consistent with his 2016 campaign promises to withdraw the United States from the JCPOA, President Trump did just that in May; and has followed with strong and tightening economic sanctions on Iran. The impact of the sanctions on that country’s economy has been magnified because of the systemic and well-documented financial corruption infesting the current regime headed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

This situation offers clear and workable avenues through which carefully directed assistance of various sorts, including financial, could be directed profitably to student groups, business leaders, and even carefully identified military officials in Iran. It is important to bear in mind that this strategy is not at odds with the American President continuing to engage in a spirited verbal boxing match with Khamenei in the media and international forums. This actually aids in keeping the focus on those very aspects of U.S. policy that are weakening and undermining the clerics’ shaky hold on power.

Strong and consistent messaging, backed by well-calculated actions, will appeal to Iran’s large, well-educated and primarily secular and Western-oriented business class and student sectors. It may appear counter-intuitive, but those groups share one character trait with the clerics — they respect strength and consistency. To the degree the Trump Administration exemplifies and pursues those same traits (that were painfully absent the previous eight years), the closer we will come to an historic and positive change in Iran that for so long has seemed beyond our grasp.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the House of Representative from 1995 to 2003. He worked previously with the CIA, has traveled and worked extensively abroad, and graduated from high school in Teheran, Iran.

Stepping Closer To That “Thousand Years of Darkness” Reagan Warned Us About in 1964

Townhall.com

By Bob Barr

On October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan, still two years away from serving in public office himself, delivered one of the greatest speeches in modern American history. Delivered to a nationwide radio audience in support of then-GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, the former movie star declared America at a crossroads. Failure to grasp and aggressively defend against the dangers then faced by our country would, Reagan warned, push us into “a thousand years of darkness.”

While the specific dangers about which Reagan then spoke were external, his call to action against existential threats applies with at least equal validity to internal forces tearing at the foundations of our freedom.

Looking back at the last month of insanity surrounding the confirmation process of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, it seems we are standing at Reagan’s shoulder, staring directly into that black abyss.

The disturbing level of irrational hatred and willingness to use violence demonstrated by those protesting Kavanaugh was outshone only by the level of contempt Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein, Mazie Hirono, Cory (aka “Spartacus”) Booker, and Chuck Schumer displayed for their constitutional “advice and consent” duty. And, if not for Sen. Lindsey Graham slapping many of his Republican colleagues (notably Sen. Jeff Flake) back to their senses, we might have just taken that last step into darkness.

The mobs of seething liberals may have physically receded temporarily from the halls of Congress and the steps of the Supreme Court, but the effects of their psychotic breakdown remain. Already in the Beltway media, liberals are pushing the idea that Democrats were insufficiently “ruthless” in their resistance and political chicanery.  Enabled by the lack of pushback from local governments, Leftists grow bolder still; literally overtaking the streets, destroying public property, and threating public officials with whom they disagree.

The historical parallel with Nazi “Brown Shirt” groups that were formed specifically for the type of political intimidation we see today, is apt if not ironic; but a more accurate comparison is with Ancient Rome.

In the waning years of that empire, leaders were routinely murdered whenever dissatisfaction with the status quo peaked. The constant changes of leadership dramatically weakened Rome’s ability to effectively control its vast territory; but the real damage was the undermining of the rule of law in Rome.  Thus was bred unsustainable instability as public confidence in government eroded. Eventually, the empire became too weak to stand, and fell to the barbarians crashing the gates.

In modern times, a civilization’s fortifications against barbarians are not as much physical as they are legal and philosophical.  A codified system of government responsibilities, undergirded by the rule of law, ensures society can function freely, peacefully and productively. However, when the rules become fluid or systematically ignored, violence seeps through fissures and accelerates the structural decay. This can be as clearly seen in Ancient Rome as in Venezuela today.

Our Founding Fathers understood these dangers, and provided firm and workable safeguards for our Republic to protect the rule of law, as much as individual liberties, from mob rule. The Electoral College protects high population enclaves from exerting undue power over low population areas; the balance of power among the three branches prevents rogue action by presidents, Congresses, and even the courts; and, due process ensures liberty for individuals, regardless of what regime may be in power at the time.

Yet, the New Left would undo all of this because it finds itself currently out of power. Combine philosophical anarchy with an embrace of violence in society writ large, and one can see just what is in store for America if this strategy of Leftist mob rule continues. Reagan’s thousand years would be quickly upon us.

The path to avoid the darkness created by rejection of reason and due process, is not an easy one, but it is clear; and here again, we can learn from Reagan’s speech 54 years ago.  The always-easy path of appeasement and accommodation to radicals – whether foreign or domestic – will yield only more of the same.  It is the very rejection of reason, logic and due process from which the New Left draws energy.

President Trump, Majority Leader McConnell, and Judge Kavanaugh were right to stand rock solid against the mob rule fueled by Hollywood elites, George Soros money, and hyper-partisan members of Congress.  If voters fail to back them up on November 6th, we will have taken that awful step into that darkness against which we were warned by the 20th Century’s most prescient leader.

Kavanaugh-Ford Round Two: Much Drama But Little Evidence

Townhall.com
Bob Barr

The Kavanaugh-Ford hearing last week might have “riveted” the nation and boosted cable TV ratings, but it showed graphically why congressional hearings should not be compared to courtroom proceedings. They make for good viewing but bad truth-finding.

The “take-aways” from the day-long session were everywhere and from everyone. Cable news pundits tripped over themselves offering their opinions on who was telling the truth, who was lying, who was credible and who wasn’t. Most viewed Dr. Ford sympathetically; but no one dared criticize her, notwithstanding the many and often glaring lapses in her memory even regarding recent events.

Public opinion polls quickly appeared; supposedly accurate reflections of how the public-at-large viewed the proceedings. Members of Congress quickly weighed in, opining as to the veracity of one witness over the other and offering as fact their personal impressions of how federal investigative agencies such as the FBI conduct investigations.

But what did the hearing actually reveal? Did the process lend itself to coming even close to establishing with any degree of certainty what the reality is regarding what happened on a summer day some 36 years ago? The answer is, no, it did not; but the process of a Senate hearing is not meant to be (and was never intended to be) a full and robust search for the truth in the same sense for which a criminal trial is designed. A confirmation hearing, at least to this point in our history, is supposed simply to provide a public forum by which, and through questioning a nominee (and sometimes other witnesses), Senators are able to gauge the nominee’s fitness for the specific position in government for which the president has nominated him or her.

Certainly, there are elements a confirmation hearing and a courtroom trial have in common; most notably, that basic rules of fairness and decency apply, and that witnesses are placed under oath and subject to legal penalties for intentionally lying during the proceeding. But the myriad rules that govern a federal (or state) criminal or civil trial, designed to protect the rights of an accused and to allow for a robust search for the truth in a consistent and fair manner, do not apply to a confirmation hearing. Nor should they.

The end game for a judicial trial and a confirmation hearing are quite different. Yet, there is a growing tendency to conflate the two, and thereby jump to a conclusion following a confirmation hearing that “guilt” or “innocence” has been revealed, as if a jury has rendered its verdict after receiving evidence and hearing witnesses subject to cross-examination to test their credibility and the veracity of their testimony.

There is no judge in a Senate hearing as there is in a trial; no individual to preside over the proceedings in an impartial manner and to ensure established precedents are followed by both sides. The chairman of a Senate committee, whether Republican or Democrat, is not an impartial arbiter and should neither be viewed as being one nor criticized for not behaving as one.

The fallacy of conflating last week’s Kavanaugh-Ford hearing with a judicial search for the truth was nowhere more apparent than in the decision by the Republican majority to permit questioning of Dr. Ford by an outside lawyer. The limitations placed on the outside counsel by the regular-order rules according to which Senators question witnesses in five-minute blocks of time and alternating religiously from one side to the other, made it impossible for the lawyer to question the witness in a coherent, strategic manner that might provide for the committee members to gain real insight into her credibility and veracity.

I saw such differences between Senate proceedings and actual trials first hand when I served as an impeachment manager in the 1999 Senate trial of President Clinton following his impeachment by the House; but that’s another story.

It is important to bear in mind that at last week’s Senate hearing there were no witnesses to corroborate or undermine the testimony of either Ms. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh, as there almost always are in criminal trials. Thus, the Senators were left to decide the question before them – is this nominee fit for the office to which he has been nominated by the President – based on incomplete and fractured evidence. This is, however, the essential nature of the confirmation process; and it is consummately the responsibility of each of the Senators to perform that duty based on those hearings and their other study and research.

Calls by Democrat Senators (and Jeff Flake) for ever more and further investigation and a more expansive search for the truth as to events long-ago concluded, which could be considered legitimate if those same Senators were licensed lawyers engaged in a real trial, are misplaced and disingenuous. But then again, this is politics.