Kevin Tillman has taken it upon himself to indict the Bush Administration, the U.S military and law-enforcement communities for their conduct in the Iraq War.
On October 19, 2006, ex-Army Ranger Kevin Tillman wrote a bizarre, rambling op-ed piece for the “progressive” web-site truthdig.com in which he accused the Bush Administration of, among other things, engaging in an illegal war, tolerating torture, subverting the Constitution, and suspending Habeas Corpus. As is typical of the raving goofballs on the America-hating left, none of these charges were supported by a shred of evidence; nor do any of them stand up under even cursory scrutiny.
Tillman, the brother of Pat Tillman, the ex-NFL great who was killed in a tragic “friendly-fire” incident in Afghanistan in 2004 while deployed there with the U.S. Army Rangers, is obviously and understandably bitter about the loss of his brother and especially angry about the manner in which the incident was subsequently bungled (ostensibly for public relations reasons) by the U.S. military. My purpose here is not to defend the Pentagon’s actions vis-à-vis the handling of that incident, or to dishonor his brother’s noble sacrifice, but rather to refute the scurrilous charges for which Kevin Tillman has taken it upon himself to indict the Bush Administration, the U.S military and law-enforcement communities.
In his piece Tillman blasts the war in Iraq as illegal, but in reality it was anything but:
• By the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the regime of Saddam Hussein was in direct and verifiable violation of no less than 16 U.N. Resolutions, including 1441 which warned of “serious consequences” for continued defiance of international law;
• The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton states, “It should be the policy of the U.S. to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;”
• Joint Resolution 114, which passed both houses of the U.S. Congress and was signed by President Bush, reads: “The President is authorized to use the U.S. armed forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;”
• On February 28 1991, the ceasefire which halted the coalition’s offensive hostilities during Operation Desert storm took effect. A ceasefire, it is important to stress, is a temporary stoppage of a war, pursuant to the adherence by both sides to the terms agreed upon therein. Legally speaking then, the 1991 Iraq war never ended and the 2003 campaign was, in part, a response to the Iraqi regime’s repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement. These violations included Iraq’s shooting at U.S. jets patrolling the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq.
Tillman asserts that “our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them [sic].” One would think he was describing the terrorists who kidnapped and beheaded Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg, but rather, he referred to the pseudo-scandals created by the leftist allies of international terrorists at the New York Times such as the C.I.A. prisons, Abu-Graib, and Guantanamo Bay.
The very idea that terrorists captured on foreign battlefields during war time and held on foreign soil are subject to the habeas corpus protections of the U.S. Constitution are as dangerous to our national security as they are absurd legally: By virtue of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Constitution (Article II), and all relevant Supreme Court decisions on the subject, The President, as Commander in Chief, has the authority to detain “unlawful enemy combatants” without arraignment, indictment, or trial for the duration of armed hostilities for the purpose of intelligence gathering and to keep said combatants off the battlefield. Moreover, every war-time President in U.S. history has exercised this right. This is not an attack on the Bill of Rights or an illegal innovation by the Bush Administration.
And the odious slander about the U.S engaging in torture is not only patently false, but is also a propaganda boost for our enemies. Apparently, Mr. Tillman could not focus his anger at those Islamic barbarians sawing off the heads of bound captives, torturing to death captured U.S. soldiers, or flying planes into buildings in the United States; rather, he reserved his indignation for the juvenile pranksters who placed women’s panties on the head of a captured terrorist; he not only calls this type of behavior torture but then blames the President for it to boot!
In a vulgar display of bitterness and cynicism, Tillman also criticizes the practice of “having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with a crayon and send it overseas . . .,” wondering why a “soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old.” Perhaps he would prefer we parents bring our toddlers to the airport to spit on soldiers returning from battle overseas rather than teaching them to honor and support them in their brave endeavor.
I, like all Americans of good will, am truly sorry for the loss suffered by the Tillman family and grateful for the service they have provided to our country; however, by exploiting his brother’s death, much like Cindy Sheehan, and attacking, for political purposes, the very men and women whose policies have kept the terrorist menace from our shores for five long years, Kevin Tillman has chosen to undermine those very policies, thus endangering all of our lives. In this, he must not go unchallenged. And lest anyone should feel Mr. Tillman is above criticism for his subversive and borderline treasonous attack on the President and our brave men and women serving nobly overseas because he himself wore the uniform, I’ll remind you that Benedict Arnold was a hero in the Continental Army before he betrayed his country by siding with the enemy. The truth is, by implementing the policies advocated by the likes of Kevin Tillman, the President would be not only unnecessarily endangering our troops on foreign battlefields but would also be exponentially increasing the risk of another catastrophic attack on the U.S. homeland by Islamic terrorists.
josonitsch@yahoo.com
Read more articles by Jeff Osonitsch
Well reasoned rebuttal to nothing more than an emotionally charged & politically calculated smear piece. While my heart goes out to the Tillman family for for their personal loss, Kevin Tillman has cheapened the sacrifice made not only by his brother, but all who've given life & limb to keep terrorism at arms reach.
Comment by bigdogusn | October 26, 2006
Kevin Tillman has not cheapened any sacrifice. I disagree with everything he has said. I fear how a once proud serving member of the military can have such a radical change in perspective. He has earned and I will give a much larger leash on his tongue than those who observe from afar. I believe the comparison to Benedict Arnold is absurd and is only mentioned to hide the credibility Kevin Tillman earned. Every serving member of the United States Military once they have completed their tour and obligation which they volunteered to do, earns the right to express his/her opinions on the war. I wish I could sit down with Kevin Tillman and buy him a beer, shake his hand, and thank him for him service. I will not be ignorant or arrogant enough to believe I will change his mind about the war. I owe him the benefit of accepting his opinion as his opinion.
There are limitations to such behavior, (IE Cindy Sheehan). This woman has no credibility other than giving birth. She is not a solemn mourner, but rather an exuberant poster child of the liberal elite. I do not see Kevin Tillman begging for the spotlight, and we all know it has been offered by now by the MSM. Having a handsome, articlutate, past military man as front and center of the anti-war kooks must have the MSM foaming at the mouth, Mr. Tillman has not went down that path. He expressed his opinion. I have 2 nephews in harms way, there death would make me no expert. Their opinion about how this war is being waged and if they believe in it should be respected regardless of which side of the issue they fall.
Comment by Honker | October 27, 2006
Kevin Tillman, nor anyone else in our society, need to "earn" the right to an opinion on any subject; we are all entitled to one. My use of the Benedict Arnold analogy, while perhaps a tad excessive (I certainly do not think Tillman is an al-quda operative), it was meant to illustrate three points: 1) that he is not immune from criticism because of his status as a veteran; 2) that as a veteran his views are automatically given more weight by the MSM (think of John Kerry lying about his fellow veterans before the Senate panel); and 3) that his irresponsible and erroneous views represent more than just an intellectual exercise - to the extent they are taken seriously by opinion leaders and policy makers, they serve to undermine our mission and thus aid our enemies.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | October 27, 2006
I agree we all have the right to an opinion and we should be able to present that. No one is suggesting that veterans voices are excluded from criticism. I do believe they carry more weight. If I wanted to know about crime in New York, I would value your (Mr. Osonitsch) opinion much more than the average Joe. Whether his opinions are used by policy makers and opinion leaders in the end is up to the policy maker and opinion leader. Supporters and Anti- Supporters are easy to find in this war. My simple point in disagreeing with your post is that comparing this man to Cindy Sheehan ( picture) and Benedict Arnold is shallow. Dissent and being a traitor are different ends of the political and patriotic spectrum. I refuse to throw every person who disagrees with me about the war as a mindless supporter of terrorism; if we can't listen and respect the same people who defend this country, who can we disagree with in a civil manner?
Comment by Honker | October 27, 2006