FORCE FOR LIFE: A FRAMEWORK FOR SECURITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Tampa, Fl - May 22, 2009,
Article written by Charles Carlos Wheeler,

The most demoralizing threat to any country is the destabilizing influence of terrorism, and its unlawful coercive intimidating force. The most de-humanizing factor people experience in a country beset by terrorism is the unbridled fear of the unlawful use of that force to threaten the extermination of any country’s existence by radical partisan elements within or outside of its borders.

Force, at a more basic level is divided as a force unto life and a force unto death, and devoid of the forces of theology, ideology, or philosophy the force of biology concludes a premium of life over death. The force of annihilation exerted against the force for life creates a push and pull natural of all life and death struggles and when terrorism leads the charge for death anywhere and everywhere, the “Force for Life” can build a framework where there is a shared understanding and definition of terrorism and where we can begin an exchange of ideas and open a channel of communication that prevents death and our wholesale extermination.

Force for Life can become the framework for where living secure, healthy, and prosperous lives in congruence with our environment, our societies, and cultures is based on our mutual existence. Force for Life requires us to exist and prosper, and to live out a natural course of life, and in living that natural course of life we discover a present necessity to establish an equilibrium that involves interdependence for co-existing to achieve the self-preservation, self-determination and autonomy innate to the Force for Life.

The framework for security in the Middle East and hence the world begins with accepting the premise of the Force for Life; here the world community agrees to the eradication of terrorism everywhere and anywhere. Where the world community also agrees on a Consensus of Nations of 12 signatory countries, the United States, United Kingdom, France, Spain, Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Iraq to chartering a Military Tribunal on Terrorism similar to the “Tribunal” at Nuremburg, “…for the just and prompt trial and punishment of…” major world terrorists, in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda and the Taliban got their start, to be known as the Kandahar Tribunal. Furthermore as part of the reconstruction of Afghanistan a construction of a super maximum prison for the detaining and imprisonment of convicted terrorists will be built.

Under the Consensus of Nations, a Kandahar Treatise for Security would be drafted to establish first a viable security for the region, to promote the common good, to establish social stability, and to secure, self-governing states of Lebanon and Palestine.

Whereas, the Consensus of Nations recognizes the new nations of Lebanon and Palestine, but will also provides significant assistance, in the promotion, of regional security, to weaker states.

Whereas, Lebanon establishes its current borders, and Palestine and Israel sign a 50/50 compromise forming a the parallel that starts at the Jordan Border and passes through Jericho following highway 1 as it extends to the Armistice of Agreement Line of 1949 just north of Jerusalem.

Whereas, the new Palestine State would inhabit all the lands north of that demarcation ceding and vacating the southern cities to Israel and thereby requiring Israel to halt, vacate all Israeli settlements in the new Palestine state.

Whereas, requiring the new Palestine state to halt, vacate all Palestinian settlements south of the new southern border of the Palestine state.

Whereas, the Consensus of Nations would raise the capital, and resources necessary from the world community, to facilitate the move and repatriation of people and lands between Israel and the new nation of Palestinian.

Whereas, the Consensus of Nations would establish a binding, equitable “Treatise on Water” by establishing equitable rates and agreed distribution of water resources between regional signatory countries of the Consensus of Nations.

Whereas, the Consensus of Nations would halt the proliferation of Nuclear Arms and Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East Region, and plan for a progressive timetable for the elimination and dismantling of existing nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, Asia and around the world.

Whereas, the Consensus of Nations would use the structure of the “Treatise on Water” to further review, enhance, and facilitate trade between member nations, and the world at a specific time and date.

PRESIDENT O's FIRST MAJOR FLIP - INSIDE THE BUBBLE

President O’s First Major Flip-Inside the Bubble

May 13, 2009 Tampa, Fl

We are seeing the full effect of the Bubble. Where are all the President’s advisors on this and who has his ear, let alone his mind, and heart? Today’s White House news conference stated that the President O. seeks to review and delay the eminent exposure of the pentagon’s file on pictures of torture, based on National Security reasons.

It goes against the courts approval to release the in-famous torture pictures, and smells of Bush era smoke screen tactics, but moreover his delay screams of power (his corrupting Presidential power) the same power he campaigned against, which opposses honest law and due process.

It raises immediately these questions: The president is impinging First Amendment rights by not abiding by the courts decision by raising a legal position outside of the original FOIA rules, thwarting First Amendment rights which prohibits against government intervention in FOIA approved releases?

What is different now as opposed to when the Abu Ghraib pictures were released? Where we actually made less safe when those pictures were released or were we made more aware of the damming injustice of torture? No, we were not made less safe! The war raged on.

But we were alerted to injustice! Again, the real questions are: Who is President Obama listening to and who made him flip on the issue, and why? The President’s Flip on the issue resembles Bush tactics to skirt the law and impinge our constitutional rights for unknown or vague National Security Interests.

The President’s release of this change of position raised more questions, created more doubt, and made people more leery of his Presidency, and wasted a considerable amount valuable political trust/capital from his contract with the American People. Was it worth it?

The report of our own soldiers killing their own out of rage and post traumatic stress disorder has marked the immediacy of ending an unwarranted war, but also marks the importance of coming clean with our sins against humanity and our selves.

Since transparency is more about being honest and forthcoming his White House press conference May 13, 2009 created big sink holes in his promise of transparency, honesty, and integrity by being vague, and incoherent, by ineptly using borderline statements that seemed to skirt the issue.

Whether the release of the pictures makes it less probable or more probable for future picture taking is irrelevant of the main verity of being transparent with the American Public.

As a matter of opinion video graphing and picture taking should be codified as a requirement in the interrogation process across every level of government, including the CIA, FBI, and destruction of those tapes should be made a federal offense punishable by federal law because it keeps everyone honest.

Giving President O the Benefit of the Doubt

“Pragmatic” is President O.’s new middle name, but how it is delivered to the American Public is in serious need of review and it is now remanded and relegated to the President to fill in the craters he and his staff have created. First it must be made clear to the American’s why the President chose to “Flip” on this issue, and it must be advocated from a point of responsibility.

“Discretion is the better part of valor”, and according to wise counsel of Proverbs: “It is good to be brave, but it is also good to be careful.; If you are careful, you will not get into situations that require you to be brave.”

First, be honest with the American people by making it clear that this is not a political ploy or a play to rouse partisan bickering, but an honest and careful examination under our moral and legal standards.

It must be made clear that he is not playing cat and mouse politics with the Constitution against the veil of National Security agency to avoid the serious scrutiny and impact these pictures represent to the moral psyche and healing of the American conscious. He must release them, and tell the country when he will.

It is also not clear how National Security would be negatively impacted by the release of these pictures, as compared to the release of the Abu Ghraib pictures. But moreover it must be made clear that he is not stepping in the way of legal justice by using a seemingly arbitrary decision to tact the delay of the release of the Pentagon’s pictures of torture through a legal ploy.

Second on that basis the President should advocate that he felt it would be inappropriate to release the pictures on Memorial Day, and give our service men and women a black eye when it should be a day of reconciliation and honor to fallen heroes of all branches of service and security.

Third, and most importantly he must uphold and honor the value of the constitutional First Amendment without abdicating our country’s sins by using National Security as a convenient veil to hide the truth, of the injustice of torture.

Anything intended to be transparent or anything that “hems and haws” or that seems illicit or anything that falls into a casting shadow of doubt becomes obscure and un-transparent, and loses all the effect of honesty.

Take counsel from Frederick Douglas:

“He is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins”

Frederic Douglas