What Will Mr. Murphy Do?

Hi All,

***UPDATED and BUMPED***SCROLL FOR UPDATE

As you probably know if you have ever read what I write, I am a Republican. My current House of Representatives representative is Chris Murphy (D – Dist 5 – CT). I actually believe that Mr. Murphy has a belief that he represents all of his district. However, I also believe that elected government officials have a responsibility to explain their actions and votes to their constituents.

In the last two days I have sent Mr. Murphy two separate emails. The first asks Mr. Murphy to explain his vote on H.R. 1591 which is the bill that tried to set timetables for the removal of troops of Iraq, cut funding for those troops, and was loaded with millions and millions of dollars of “pork” just to get Democratic members of the House to vote for it. If you haven’t seen the breakdown of this bill, read this editorial in the Washington Post (Note: In general the Post is a very left-leaning newspaper).

With all of this in mind, I wrote the following email to Mr. Murphy:

Mr. Murphy,

I would like a written explanation from you regarding your vote on H.R. 1591. You voted for this pork laden bill and many of us want to understand why you did this. Was it simply because you only vote party line? Or was it that there is some overriding reason you feel that supporting the troops is not something you should do?

I await your answer

So far, Mr. Murphy has not responded, but I will update this post when he does.

I also wrote to Mr. Murphy with regards to the recent trip by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to the Middle East in general, and to the country of Syria in particular. According to the Constitution of the United States of America, only the executive branch has the right to conduct foreign affairs and policies relating to foreign affairs. President Bush asked that Mrs. Pelosi not undertake the trip because she does not represent the policies of the current White House. Mrs. Pelosi, undeterred, made the trip to Syria, and promptly gave untrue information to Syrian President (aka dictator) Assad. See this article for details.

Unfortunately, as the article points out, Mrs. Pelosi was not portraying information from Israel as she stated. In fact, the country of Israel had to quickly point out that what Mrs. Pelosi told Assad was not true. By trying to undertake the foreign policy message of her own initiative, Mrs. Pelosi violated he tenets of the Constitution. And in fact, she may have violated the law – the Logan Act. The act states:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.


According to the Constitution, the foreign policy conducted by the US is the purview of the President, and his/her appointees of the State Department. With that in mind, I wrote the following to Mr. Murphy:

The current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has…in my opinion…completely disgraced that important position by going to Syria against the wishes of the government that she professes to serve. This is utterly inexcusable and unacceptable! It is most definitely NOT the business of the Speaker of the House or any member of Congress to usurp the authority of the President, especially in the middle of a DANGEROUS war! People have been skirting around the issue by calling it a difference of opinion, an “alternative foreign policy” (Tom Lantos), a constitutional duty (Arlen Specter), a Congressional perogative…this is ALL nonsense!!

There has also been talk of the possible violation of the “Logan Act” by Ms Pelosi. I think, technically, that is probably the case…and I would like to see her prosecuted. However, I am realistic enough to know this is probably not going to happen. However, it IS within the authority of the House of Representatives to discipline one of their own. This is a VERY serious breach of ethics and conduct! Ms Pelosi is not a Prime Minister, Secretary of State, or an Ambassador. Her public disputes and disagreements with the Bush administration need to stay IN THIS COUNTRY!

I regretfully, but strongly, add my name to a growing list of voters who ask that the House immediately launch a probe into the outrageous conduct of Nancy Pelosi and others who went with her (including any Republicans who participated in this) and that, if faced with continuing treachery of this sort, steps be taken to remove Pelosi and others from their leadership roles. I have no wish to see Ms Pelosi publicly humiliated (even though the same consideration for President Bush on her part has not been evident)…having said that however, if she insists on escalating this behavior to the point where it becomes a critical matter to do so, then so be it!

That some in this government would prefer to talk with our enemies rather than our own President is horrible!! I know that if President Bush intruded himself into the Congress’ legitimate business, that he would and SHOULD be roundly criticized for it. Now it is Congresses turn to put the mirror to its own conduct and DO THE RIGHT
THING!!

I strongly urge you to discuss this with the House ethics committee and anyone else you may deem necessary to include. Perhaps you could prevail upon Nancy Pelosi herself to resign from the Speaker of the House position. She does not belong there…PERIOD!! If NOTHING at all is done about this situation, it WILL send a signal to not only our enemies abroad, but a clear signal to others in Congress and elsewhere that interference in our crucial foreign policy will be tolerated even to the disastrous consequence of our failure to WIN this or any other future war!

It is time to set Mrs. Pelosi straight as to what her job is, along with anyone else who may wish to oppose the duly ELECTED President in this way. It may yet come down to a choice of her losing her job or this country losing the war. NO ONE’S job is so important that it should be protected at all costs against the prospect of complete and utter failure of our foreign policy and the horrible thought of what could come after that.

I look forward to your reply on this matter.

Again, I will update this post when, and if, I hear back from Mr. Murphy.

UPDATE:
The original emails to Mr. Murphy were sent prior to the first publishing of this article on 4/9/07. To date all I have heard from Mr. Murphy is two "form" emails stating that he would get back to me. Because of that, today I sent the following email to Rep. Murphy:

Mr. Murphy,

Several weeks back I wrote two emails to you. Although I got your form response email stating that you would get back to me, I have not heard from you to date. It has been almost 3 weeks.

The first dealt with your reasoning/rationale for voting for HR 1591. Surely, since you already had voted for this pork laden bill, you had a reason to do so. It seems to me that it should not take three weeks of research to see why you voted for the bill. As one of your constituents I would like an immediate answer.

The second email asked you to begin discussions with the House Ethics committee on the possible transgression of the law by Speaker Pelosi (and others) with regards to her trip to Syria. This is even more important now that she is making known intentions to visit Iran. As I explained in my previous email, it appears that Speaker Pelosi may have violated the Logan Act. To wit:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments. Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly ommences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Please let me know the status of your discussions/investigations with the
House Ethics Committee.

IN addition, please update me on the status of investigations into Rep. William Jefferson (why hasn't he been removed from his committees), Speaker Pelosi's ties to minimum wage and Starkist Tuna, and Rep. Mollohan. I assume that you believe that even the impression of impropriety by elected representatives needs to be investigated.

Finally, I would like you to put into words your reasoning of why Congress should try to micromanage the military situation in Iraq, as opposed to the military leaders who are paid to make the right decisions there. Why would any member of Congress think they are better qualified? Why would you vote for any measure that attempts to take control of and micromanage the military? Do you have a Constitutional basis for trying to control the military through Congress?

I await your reply. Hopefully I don't just get an automated form letter again.

Will We Ever Learn?

I am currently reading Flyboys, by James Bradley. This is an excellent book, especially if you want to learn a lot more on the back-story of the brutality shown by both sides in the Pacific Theater during WWII. You can get a copy of the book here.

I was particularly struck by a chapter early on in the book that describes the Japanese attitude towards the United States. I think there are clear parallels to be drawn today, and that maybe there are some of us who haven’t learned from missteps in the past. Because of that, the question becomes are we doomed to repeat those mistakes over again?

I apologize in advance to Mr. Bradley for this fairly long excerpt from his book, but I know that he has put the history into words that I could not hope to imitate without actual plagiarism.

Flyboys – Chapter 6 (pgs. 89-91)
The ABCD
Encirclement

On Tuesday, September 21, 1937, Japanese
airplanes bombed the capital of China, Nanking. Over the next few days, the
front-page New York Times headlines reflected the West’s
horror:

U.S. SHARP NOTE TO JAPAN “OBJECTS” TO NANKING
RAIDS
ATTACKS TERMED ILLEGAL

20 CHINESE CITIES BOMBED; 2,000
CASUALTIES
CIVILIANS VICTIMS

BRITAIN EXPRESSES “HORROR” OF
BOMBINGS, TALKS BOYCOTT
LONDON IN PROTEST
ENVOY CITES SLAUGHTER OF
NONCOMBATANTS

The accompanying articles denounced Japan’s “campaign of death and terror.” Britain “called the attention of Japan officially to the fact that no nation has a right in law or morality to bomb crowded cities from the air and so make war indiscriminately upon noncombatants and combatants alike.” For it’s part, the U.S. State Department dispatched a stiff note to Japan, stating, “This government holds the view that any general bombing of an extensive area wherein there resides a large populace engaged in peaceful pursuits is unwarranted and contrary to principles of law and humanity. Secretary of State Cordell Hull condemned the bombing with these torrid words: “When the methods used in the conduct of these hostilities take the form of ruthless bombing of unfortified localities with the resultant slaughter of civilian populations, and in particular women and children, public opinion in the US regards such methods as barbarous. Such acts are in violation of the most elementary principles of those standards of humane conduct which has been developed as an essential part of modern civilization.”

President Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed the shock of “every civilized man and woman”: “The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.”

In floor debate, senators said the Japanese had committed a “crime against humanity” and were pursuing methods “reminiscent of the cruelties perpetrated by primitive and barbarous nations upon inoffensive people.” A resolution was quickly passed denouncing the “inhuman bombing of civilian populations.”

Soon the entire world, in the form of the League of Nations, had condemned Japan. In a resolution the League declared that “taking into urgent consideration the question of aerial bombardment by Japanese aircraft of open towns in China, [the League] expresses its profound distress at the loss of life caused to innocent civilians, including great numbers of women and children, as a result of such bombardments, and declares that no excuse can be made for such acts, which have aroused horror and indignation throughout the world, and solemnly condemns them.”

Japan’s reaction was to continue bombing. And why not? The same issues of the New York Times discussing the West’s hand-wringing also revealed that Tokyo was facing all bark and no bite.

Please do not misunderstand what I have quoted here. I know that the US, before and after this period of time, resorted to very brutal means in the course of war. That is not the point.

The reason I quote this is the last sentence. Japan considered the rest of the world to “all bark and no bite.” Millions of words were spoken and written (and from the quotes above one can see that run-on sentences were the style of the day). Negotiations were undertaken – diplomacy at all levels. And Japan just kept on doing what they wanted. They were emboldened by the lack of direct confrontation over their wars of conquest. In fact they considered the US to be a “land of merchants” whose population didn’t have the stomach to fight a prolonged war. They felt that their Warrior Spirit, coupled with their war machine could attack the US and win. That they would get away with it because of our reluctance to fight.

Why is this important today? Simple. The question is have we learned from history? Have we learned from our complacency in earlier wars?

In today’s world we are at war with a particular form of Islam – radical Islam. Jihadists believe that the US is “all bark and no bite”. That all they have to do is wait us out; wait until the American people are tired of fighting a prolonged war, and then they will win. Unfortunately, we have many in this country who are helping the radical jihadists. We have the MSM who can’t be bothered to tell all of the story in Iraq. We have political leaders who don’t have the cajones to finish what they voted for to begin with.

The parallels to the war in the Pacific are scary. What happens if we pull back from Iraq? I’m not speaking about the ethnic cleansing that will take place. Any normal, thinking person knows about that. There will be massive bloodshed.

No, I’m speaking more about what the jihadists will believe. If we repeat history, as some seem to want us to do, the jihadists will become more emboldened. If they consider us to be a country with no resolve, how long will it be before they come here? Just as the Japanese came to Pearl Harbor. But this time, it won’t be dive bombers and fighters attacking a series of military bases. It will be mass destruction aimed at civilian population centers.

When will we wake up to the reality of the situation? When we are attacked again? What a sorry state of affairs.

Law Enforcement - Or the Lack Thereof

This is a tricky issue. Our Law Enforcement agencies are there to protect, serve, and help the citizens. There is no question about this. All you have to do to believe that is to look at the emergency response during any disaster – especially 9/11, when so many risked life and limb to help and rescue others. However, I must ask if that is all there is to it?

Tonight I was watching Cops on FOX. It was episode #1928 and the segment I found interesting was the second. The description of the segment, from the FOX.com website, is as follows:

Officer David Couture of the Lowell Police Department responds to a call that a van had been reported with men throwing beer bottles out of it. The two suspects are questioned. The suspect in the red shirt confesses to throwing the bottle. The victims are questioned and they confirm the story and add that the driver tried to run them off the road. Both suspects are arrested and taken to jail.

Theoretically, police officers are supposed to be highly trained in questioning. Part of the protocol is training in asking open-ended/non-leading questions. In essence it means that police officers are not supposed to ask leading questions of either accuser or suspects. The reason for this is simple – if a leading question is asked, it could implant a suggestion into the mind of the person being questioned.

The problem I had with this story on Cops is this. The police were called out in response to a person throwing a beer bottle at the car of the accuser. There seems to be no question this happened, as the “suspect” in the red shirt admitted as much. However, when Officer Couture was speaking with the accusers, the information about the driver running them off the road was not volunteered by the accusers. Instead, Officer Couture clearly asked them if the driver of the other vehicle had run them off the road. That is a leading question. The accusers immediately responded that had happened.

The point here is that the officer should have been more careful. The driver of the vehicle was charged with attempting to run the accuser’s vehicle off the road. This may have happened – we do not know from the show. But what happens when the defense attorney gets hold of the tape of the Cops episode showing the officer asking leading questions? The guy will probably get off because of the lack of basic investigatory skills.

What does all this mean? We have a problem in this country with many, many incomplete or botched investigations by police officers. Guilty people are going free because of it. And vice versa, innocent people are going to jail. And the problem continues to spiral out of control. More later.