Daily Archives: February 7, 2013

Scott St. Clair: If Not Drones, Then What, How and Who?

On the record: I support drone strikes against anyone, including an American citizen, who wages war against the United States from outside the United States. Beats sending in military personnel who might get killed. 

For those who are outragedby this some random questions:

1. In World War II, American citizens — difficult to find out how many — were in the Wehrmacht or SS fighting for Germany against the United States. Were they not legitimate military targets subject to being shot or bombed, the Constitution notwithstanding? If two German soldiers, one of whom was an American 


citizen, manned a machine gun, would you have to treat them differently? Would shooting the German, but not the American, be OK? Would the American be entitled to constitutional due process even as he was shooting at U.S. military personnel? What about dropping bombs on a German unit that included American citizens in it? If it was known that an American was in an enemy unit as an armed combatant against the United States, would that mean the unit could not be attacked lest the American be killed without due process?

2. Assassination of enemy leaders during wartime is a legal military tactic. In April 1943, a squadron of U.S. Army P-38s ambushed and killed the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, Japanese Adm.  Isoroku Yamamoto. Was his death unconstitutional because the attack that killed him was carried out with stealth and no warning? If an American citizen was similarly engaged — say, as a uniformed general officer in an enemy army — would he not similarly be at risk? What’s the difference?

3. Anwar al-Awlaki was a natural-born American citizen who engaged in acts of war against the United States as a senior-level al Qaeda commander and operative. In 2011, he was killed by a drone strike in Yemen. Why was he entitled to civilian due process and not subject to the rules of war in the same way as Osama bin Laden? What would be the substantive difference between the two?

4. During wartime, who determines proper military tactics and rules of engagement — the president as commander in chief or lawyers and the courts?

5. Does it, or should it, make a difference that al Qaeda forces arestateless?

6. If the United States goes to war against a nation-state using conventional, uniformed armed forces, would it be unconstitutional to target known American citizens who were in enemy uniform and serving in or commanding enemy forces?

7. Does it make a difference if an act of war against the United States is committed on U.S. soil, like Antietam, MD (September 17, 1862, the bloodiest day in American history where 87,000 American citizens waged war against 45,000 Americans resulting in 22,717 American casualties, including 3,654 Americans dead) , or from a location not under the authority or control of the United States, like Yemen?

8. Was the American Civil War constitutional given that the United States waged war against U.S. citizens (see above)?

Just curious…
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

State Rep Whitsett: Environmentalists Coming for Rest of Oregon’s Timber: YOURS. Write the Governor NOW.

If a tree falls in the forest but it’s spiked by or being camped in by an EarthFirst! activist, would anyone hear it? Would anyone care? More to the point, are there any trees left that the environmentalist will let us fell? After decimating Oregon’s timber industry, silencing mills and putting proud rural Oregonians on unemployment lines and food stamps, these same lawfare warriors are back for more.


This newsletter from State Representative Bob Whitsett explains the strategy being used in Salem and beyond to tie up more trees on private lands AND public lands again. Seldom do you hear or see a lawmaker lay it out so brazenly and starkly. Read all it. It should curl your hair. 

Hey Oregonians, hug a tree. It may be the only rhing you’ll be able to do with them after these people are finished.



The same people who brought you their spotted owl hijinx are now threatening the Governor’s effort to bring balance back into the timber industry in Oregon and now it’s up to you to write him and tell him he’s on the right path. Here are his contacts:

Email: http://www.oregon.gov/gov/pages/contact.aspx
Address: Governor KitzhaberAttn: Citizens’ Representative160 State Capitol900 Court StreetSalem, Oregon  97301-4047

The following is Whitsett’s letter. All bolding is mine.

A coalition of state, federal, local and private entities have been working to find ways to increase timber harvest on Oregon’s federally owned lands.
To his credit, Governor Kitzhaber has been attempting to lead the effort to restore sustainable harvest on Oregon’s O&C timberlands.
Last month, a group of six environmentalist organizations wrote a letter to the Governor that appears to be a thinly veiled threat.
The letter is signed by Center for Biologic Diversity, Conservation Northwest, Earthjustice, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Oregon Wild and Western Environmental Law Center.
Over the past two decades, this group of organizations has been the plaintiffs in a virtual tsunami of environmental lawsuits.
The group alleges that the 1993 Northwest Forest Plan has focused endangered species recovery efforts on federal public lands.
They further assert that this focus has allowed private landowners to continue logging on their lands without significant new restrictions.
The letter appears to suggest that any increase in timber harvest on federal lands must be offset by an equal reduction in timber harvest from state and private lands.
It asserts that conservation requirements for private and state lands in the Northwest region will need to be revisited and increased.
Moreover, it suggests that timber harvest from state and private lands over the past twenty years would need to be mitigated for the hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat they allege were irreversibly removed by timber harvest.
It declares that state and private landowners would be legally responsible to increase their conservation efforts in the event that federal conservation contributions are reduced.
The letter urges the Governor to carefully consider the risks, because no one wants to see a return to conflict, controversy and regulatory uncertainty.
In my opinion, all that uncertainty and conflict was largely the result of environmental lawsuits.The letter does not mention that the Northwest Forest Plan has been an abject failure for virtually every segment of society, except for environmental organizations whose primary source of revenue is lawsuits.
Timber harvest on federal lands has plummeted more than ninety percent since 1993.Oregon’s timber harvest infrastructure has been decimated.[my emph]
Most of the towns and communities that were dependent on federal forest harvest have suffered devastating double digit unemployment for two decades.
The economy and social fiber of these towns and communities have suffered irreversible damage.Federal forest management has been virtually eliminated under the Northwest Forest Plan.
Widespread forest disease and death, from unmanaged pestilence, has destroyed millions of acres of once vibrant and valuable forestland.
The ninety percent reduction in forest harvest has resulted in over- crowding as well as an incredible accumulation of ground and ladder fuels.
The combination of conditions has resulted in innumerable, horrific wildfires that have totally destroyed millions of acres of harvestable forests, watersheds and ecosystems.
Also not mentioned is that the Northwest Forest Plan is based on false assumptions.
The assumption, that the Northern Spotted Owl was endangered and that diminishing old growth forest habitat was responsible for the decline of the Owl, appears to be untrue.
It has since been determined by empirical data collection and observation that the Owl can, and does, survive in virtually any forest habitat.
Further, the Owl has continued to decline in numbers even though federal forest harvest has been reduced by ninety percent for nearly twenty years.
It has now become obvious to most observers that the decline of the Northern Spotted Owl is primarily caused by the natural encroachment and competition of the Barred Owl.
All of this forest destruction and the decimation of rural communities could have been avoided had empirical, reproducible science been employed in the original decisions regarding the Northwest Forest Plan.
However, the Plan has created an environment where litigious supposedly ecofriendly organizations are able to flourish and prosper.
Many of these organizations support their operations and growth primarily from revenue derived from settlement of third party lawsuits that challenge decisions made under federal law.
It is not only in their best interest to keep the controversy alive, it is essential to their existence.Their letter to the Governor is supposedly written on behalf of tens of thousands of members and supporters.
It is copied to nearly twenty private forest management firms in an apparent extension of the implied threat.
I urge hundreds of thousands of Oregonians to write our Governor in support of his efforts to restore sanity to federal forest management.
Please remember, if we do not stand up for rural Oregon no one will.
Best Regards,Doug

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Scott St. Clair: If Not Drones, Then What, How and Who?

On the record: I support drone strikes against anyone, including an American citizen, who wages war against the United States from outside the United States. Beats sending in military personnel who might get killed. 

For those who are outragedby this some random questions:

1. In World War II, American citizens — difficult to find out how many — were in the Wehrmacht or SS fighting for Germany against the United States. Were they not legitimate military targets subject to being shot or bombed, the Constitution notwithstanding? If two German soldiers, one of whom was an American 


citizen, manned a machine gun, would you have to treat them differently? Would shooting the German, but not the American, be OK? Would the American be entitled to constitutional due process even as he was shooting at U.S. military personnel? What about dropping bombs on a German unit that included American citizens in it? If it was known that an American was in an enemy unit as an armed combatant against the United States, would that mean the unit could not be attacked lest the American be killed without due process?

2. Assassination of enemy leaders during wartime is a legal military tactic. In April 1943, a squadron of U.S. Army P-38s ambushed and killed the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, Japanese Adm.  Isoroku Yamamoto. Was his death unconstitutional because the attack that killed him was carried out with stealth and no warning? If an American citizen was similarly engaged — say, as a uniformed general officer in an enemy army — would he not similarly be at risk? What’s the difference?

3. Anwar al-Awlaki was a natural-born American citizen who engaged in acts of war against the United States as a senior-level al Qaeda commander and operative. In 2011, he was killed by a drone strike in Yemen. Why was he entitled to civilian due process and not subject to the rules of war in the same way as Osama bin Laden? What would be the substantive difference between the two?

4. During wartime, who determines proper military tactics and rules of engagement — the president as commander in chief or lawyers and the courts?

5. Does it, or should it, make a difference that al Qaeda forces arestateless?

6. If the United States goes to war against a nation-state using conventional, uniformed armed forces, would it be unconstitutional to target known American citizens who were in enemy uniform and serving in or commanding enemy forces?

7. Does it make a difference if an act of war against the United States is committed on U.S. soil, like Antietam, MD (September 17, 1862, the bloodiest day in American history where 87,000 American citizens waged war against 45,000 Americans resulting in 22,717 American casualties, including 3,654 Americans dead) , or from a location not under the authority or control of the United States, like Yemen?

8. Was the American Civil War constitutional given that the United States waged war against U.S. citizens (see above)?

Just curious…
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

State Rep Whitsett: Environmentalists Coming for Rest of Oregon’s Timber: YOURS. Write the Governor NOW.

If a tree falls in the forest but it’s spiked by or being camped in by an EarthFirst! activist, would anyone hear it? Would anyone care? More to the point, are there any trees left that the environmentalist will let us fell? After decimating Oregon’s timber industry, silencing mills and putting proud rural Oregonians on unemployment lines and food stamps, these same lawfare warriors are back for more.


This newsletter from State Representative Bob Whitsett explains the strategy being used in Salem and beyond to tie up more trees on private lands AND public lands again. Seldom do you hear or see a lawmaker lay it out so brazenly and starkly. Read all it. It should curl your hair. 

Hey Oregonians, hug a tree. It may be the only rhing you’ll be able to do with them after these people are finished.



The same people who brought you their spotted owl hijinx are now threatening the Governor’s effort to bring balance back into the timber industry in Oregon and now it’s up to you to write him and tell him he’s on the right path. Here are his contacts:

Email: http://www.oregon.gov/gov/pages/contact.aspx
Address: Governor KitzhaberAttn: Citizens’ Representative160 State Capitol900 Court StreetSalem, Oregon  97301-4047

The following is Whitsett’s letter. All bolding is mine.

A coalition of state, federal, local and private entities have been working to find ways to increase timber harvest on Oregon’s federally owned lands.
To his credit, Governor Kitzhaber has been attempting to lead the effort to restore sustainable harvest on Oregon’s O&C timberlands.
Last month, a group of six environmentalist organizations wrote a letter to the Governor that appears to be a thinly veiled threat.
The letter is signed by Center for Biologic Diversity, Conservation Northwest, Earthjustice, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Oregon Wild and Western Environmental Law Center.
Over the past two decades, this group of organizations has been the plaintiffs in a virtual tsunami of environmental lawsuits.
The group alleges that the 1993 Northwest Forest Plan has focused endangered species recovery efforts on federal public lands.
They further assert that this focus has allowed private landowners to continue logging on their lands without significant new restrictions.
The letter appears to suggest that any increase in timber harvest on federal lands must be offset by an equal reduction in timber harvest from state and private lands.
It asserts that conservation requirements for private and state lands in the Northwest region will need to be revisited and increased.
Moreover, it suggests that timber harvest from state and private lands over the past twenty years would need to be mitigated for the hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat they allege were irreversibly removed by timber harvest.
It declares that state and private landowners would be legally responsible to increase their conservation efforts in the event that federal conservation contributions are reduced.
The letter urges the Governor to carefully consider the risks, because no one wants to see a return to conflict, controversy and regulatory uncertainty.
In my opinion, all that uncertainty and conflict was largely the result of environmental lawsuits.The letter does not mention that the Northwest Forest Plan has been an abject failure for virtually every segment of society, except for environmental organizations whose primary source of revenue is lawsuits.
Timber harvest on federal lands has plummeted more than ninety percent since 1993.Oregon’s timber harvest infrastructure has been decimated.[my emph]
Most of the towns and communities that were dependent on federal forest harvest have suffered devastating double digit unemployment for two decades.
The economy and social fiber of these towns and communities have suffered irreversible damage.Federal forest management has been virtually eliminated under the Northwest Forest Plan.
Widespread forest disease and death, from unmanaged pestilence, has destroyed millions of acres of once vibrant and valuable forestland.
The ninety percent reduction in forest harvest has resulted in over- crowding as well as an incredible accumulation of ground and ladder fuels.
The combination of conditions has resulted in innumerable, horrific wildfires that have totally destroyed millions of acres of harvestable forests, watersheds and ecosystems.
Also not mentioned is that the Northwest Forest Plan is based on false assumptions.
The assumption, that the Northern Spotted Owl was endangered and that diminishing old growth forest habitat was responsible for the decline of the Owl, appears to be untrue.
It has since been determined by empirical data collection and observation that the Owl can, and does, survive in virtually any forest habitat.
Further, the Owl has continued to decline in numbers even though federal forest harvest has been reduced by ninety percent for nearly twenty years.
It has now become obvious to most observers that the decline of the Northern Spotted Owl is primarily caused by the natural encroachment and competition of the Barred Owl.
All of this forest destruction and the decimation of rural communities could have been avoided had empirical, reproducible science been employed in the original decisions regarding the Northwest Forest Plan.
However, the Plan has created an environment where litigious supposedly ecofriendly organizations are able to flourish and prosper.
Many of these organizations support their operations and growth primarily from revenue derived from settlement of third party lawsuits that challenge decisions made under federal law.
It is not only in their best interest to keep the controversy alive, it is essential to their existence.Their letter to the Governor is supposedly written on behalf of tens of thousands of members and supporters.
It is copied to nearly twenty private forest management firms in an apparent extension of the implied threat.
I urge hundreds of thousands of Oregonians to write our Governor in support of his efforts to restore sanity to federal forest management.
Please remember, if we do not stand up for rural Oregon no one will.
Best Regards,Doug

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com