Archive for the letter to jim moran Category

Of puppy mills and terrorists

Posted in Fire Jim Moran, from guantanamo to alexandria jim moran, letter to jim moran, Opinion (Political), Virginia District 8 election, Virginia politics on November 1, 2010 by AN Security

Why Jim Moran thinks he’s doing you a favor by running again.

Yes, the venerable Moran made a formidable effort to sell a crowded auditorium at the Arlington Hospital believe why he’s the only man for the job. What job that is he thinks he’s doing involves his extensive history of grifting earmarks for those who want everything on a platter. That’s not his only sin of course. Election day is upon us and one can only wonder what goes on in a man’s head when he touts his talent for finding money. I’m still pissed about Moran wanting to please master Obama and soil our lovely city with the trial of a monster like the Bali Bomber. How about raising money to fund worthless and needlessly costly projects (BRAC, anyone?), is eager to raise money to help muslim extremist groups grow in numbers in NOVA – along with pundit Jerry Connolly (he needs to be a one-term type, best of luck to Keith Fimian) and fighting to the death to protect the rights of puppies being abused in mills.

Though I find myself to be a rather astute and informed expat overseas with access to media and news, I was not aware that Virginia, District 8 in particular, had a problem with puppy mills. All I know is that on this evening in Arlington as Moran struggled to sell his tired brand of politics to his audience we could all see the fear. It’s all in the eyes; or the lack of juice, either way he’s run out of his usual rhetoric.

By frequently saying ‘my opponent lacks credibility’ he means he’s the defending champion on his last fight; the younger fighter hungry for that title belt.   His senses are right on target, and Moran should have relinquished the belt long ago. Not that he’s a winner, far from it, but someone who has managed to maintain the liberal illusion of prosperity while setting up Virginians for financial demise. Tim Kaine is gone. Jim needs to go.  Patrick Murray is taking a huge risk and earns my respect for challenging the Democrat stronghold. Moran is like the hooker stating to the client what she/he can do. It’s pretty obvious that he’s into politics for his own gain.

This post isn’t meant to go beyond my personal disgust at Moran’s lengthy tenure. Naturally, someone who thinks that military service isn’t public service never lived life – at least not in our reality. I had the opportunity to meet Murray while at home and he seemed sincerely ready to tackle our troubles. It’s going to take a lot of work. If tomorrow yields just enough votes to give Moran a good scare we will have to continue working on getting him out of office. Voters still select him each time because of name recognition, usual liberal stupidity and liberal give-me-what-I-want attitudes. The vicious cycle will have to be broken. How we’ll do that will manifest on November 3rd after the dust settles.

Whatever you do, please don’t vote for Moran because he loves puppies.  Have some damn decency and courage and vote with your head; even if you have to bash it on that voting screen to make real change happen.


Don’t ask don’t tell that I have no clue: Jim Moran’s response to my letter

Posted in don't ask don't tell, Jim Moran, letter to jim moran, Opinion (Political), US politics, Virginia politics, Virginia representatives on April 1, 2010 by AN Security

No, this is not really one of those April fool’s Day jokes. Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) did send me an email today. Perhaps it is a joke but I wasn’t laughing. There is something about picking inconsistencies in people’s writing that always appeals to me and he did not disappoint. And yes, I did send Jim Moran a letter dated January 25 2010 that has gone unanswered until today, however just as I was about to give him a little credit (I was hoping for one of those go to hell letters) I got something completely different. My letter which I published in its entirety on this site entitled We are not the Taliban: A letter to Jim Moran, addressed in painful detail (to him maybe, I like my epic letters) why I am strongly against his support of bringing Riduan Isamuddin, (aka Hambali, the Bali Bomber) for trial in my home of residence of Alexandria, Virginia. I was clearly upset and wanted him to know I would not support trials for any enemy combatant on US soil. No answer. The story died as quickly as it surfaced in the media.

Until today.

Let me know if you can find a problem with this response and don’t be shy to post comments. I will be addressing his email shortly.

Dear Ms Leclerc,

Thank you for writing me concerning the repeal of the U.S. military’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy (WTF?? I didn’t write you about the gay ban!).

I am a cosponsor of the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act” (H.R. 1283), and an advocate for replacing DADT with a policy of non-discrimination (You’d co-sponsor condoms for crickets if it were feasible). If enacted, this legislation would prevent a person’s sexual orientation from being used to prevent his or her service in our country’s armed forces. As you know, President Obama called for a repeal of this policy in his State of the Union address and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen expressed their support for repeal in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Those who continue to support DADT argue that allowing openly gay and lesbian soldiers to serve next to straight soldiers would hurt unit cohesion. Recent studies by the Armed Forces and the experiences of other nations do not support this assertion. A report published in Joint Forces Quarterly late last year concluded that “there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.” A recent study by the Palm Center (Sure, why should anyone accept the conclusions of a left-biased organization. There must be other orgs capable of doing this research or have already done so but you’re not presenting that counterargument, right?) examined the experience of other countries that have repealed bans on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. (If Canada or the UK says jump you jump, right? Why would I care about what other countries are doing?) It found that none of the 25 nations that currently allow open service (including Canada, Great Britain, Israel, and Australia) experienced any negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness despite predictions of major disruptions prior to enactment.

The military spends, on average, between $22,000 and $43,000 to replace each person discharged under DADT. In 2006, the Blue Ribbon Commission(More looney left people. Smacks of the Star Chamber) from the University of California at Santa Barbara – which included former Department of Defense Secretary William Perry and other defense experts – estimated that the first decade of the policy cost the military $364 million. By now, those costs have likely reached at least a half billion dollars. DADT is a fiscal money pit. (Hey, how about you tell me how much it’s cost us to replace military personnel with life-long experience who were forced to retire since the 1990s at the end of the Gulf War? Before many were brought back from retirement, even medical retirement as trainers because most of our pool of knowledge had been dried! Look at the costs of adjusting their retirement pensions/retainer pay. Doesn’t that cost a lot?)

To date, DADT has resulted in the discharge of nearly 14,000 gay and lesbian soldiers, including engineers, linguists and other critical occupations. Each of these soldiers agreed to make the same sacrifices asked of any soldier, in turn wanting nothing more than to serve their nation honorably and honestly. Unfortunately, the current DADT policy makes this impossible. I believe our nation’s security will be best protected when all service members are allowed to serve without fear that their sexual orientation could become known and result in their discharge.

Late last year, I sent a letter signed by 95 of my House colleagues to Defense Secretary Gates requesting monthly updates on the number of service members discharged because of DADT. Through these routine disclosures, Congress and the American public would have consistent reminders of the careers ended and harm done to our national security because of DADT (And I thought harm done to our national security came from ignoring Afghanistan for a year – and McChrystal, badmouthing Bush – who’s been gone a while, dissing Israel when it needs us the most while sucking up to the Persians and shutting down the F-22 jet production and paring down the Navy’s fleet, silly me. Let me stop now before my eye twitches until I have a stroke). The Department of Defense finally released the 2009 discharge numbers on February 1st, revealing that 428 additional soldiers were fired because of their sexual orientation. I will continue to push for monthly disclosures going forward (How about you disclose other matters regarding funding for projects nobody needs within District 8?).

On March 3rd, I held a press conference to call attention to the soldiers (You won’t even visit units returning from deployment, but you meet with some gay ex-service members, what’s the difference right?) who are directly impacted by this antiquated policy (Do I have to tell you who came up with this antiquated policy?). I was joined by three homosexual service members, two of whom were discharge under DADT and one who, throughout her decorated 30 year service, maintained a lingering fear that at any time she could be outed, ending her career. Unfortunately, often times lost among the statistics, the testimony of our military leaders, and the debate over the political implications of repeal, are the soldiers themselves – (Their service is really not the issue, it is sacrificing the integrity of the services to push social change that’s not needed. They already serve!) those who want nothing more than to serve their nation honorably and honestly. It is for those individuals that DADT is not just a discriminatory policy with a silly name, but a constant threat with severe consequences.

While I commend Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen (Drones!), and the U.S. military for initiating a review of how to best implement a repeal of DADT and for the issuance of revised guidelines that tighten investigations and discharges under DADT, these developments should not stymie repeal itself. The DoD review will not provide any relevant information to help determine whether DADT should be repealed; for that purpose numerous studies (show me the independent studies, name them!) already exist, each one pointing in the direction of repeal. With the facts and the American public on our side, now is the time for Congress to finally honor the sacrifice of all of our service members by repealing DADT. Rest assured I will do all I can to support this effort.

Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue (Again, I’ve never written you about this. Do I have it correctly and whoever reads your mail can’t figure out what to send out?).

James P. Moran

P.S. I invite you to visit my website at that contains information on many topics of interest and allows you to sign up for the Moran e-News.


Oh yes indeed, I will visit…let me roll up my sleeves. I can play this game all day.

We are not the Taliban: A letter to Jim Moran

Posted in from guantanamo to alexandria jim moran, letter to jim moran, the bali bomber trial in alexandria virginia on January 25, 2010 by AN Security

Mr. Moran,

Your essay entitled From Guantanamo to Alexandria, published in the Washington Post, in which you so gallantly offer Alexandria as a possible venue for the trial of Riduan Isamuddin, (aka Hambali, the Bali Bomber) has prompted me to write you. The fact that you believe that Alexandrian’s good will and nature will translate into blinded compliance with one of the most unpatriotic, dangerous and unconstitutional actions to date is unconscionable. Even if you claim in your essay that you are not openly campaigning for this trial to be held here, you are certainly prepared to make that move whether we like it or not. You forgot to mention in your essay several factors which are crucial in understanding the gravity of conducting these trials in the U.S.

President Obama and Sen. John McCain both pledged last year to close the Guantanamo facility because they recognized that the United States is governed by the rule of law and defined by our embrace of universal human rights. Indefinitely detaining individuals without charge violates the most basic principle of habeas corpus, greatly damages our international reputation, and fuels both terrorist recruitment and anti-American sentiment.

By and large, Alexandrians are civic-minded people and are ready to do their duty if it serves the greater good. They have shown this public spirit time and again. The “20th hijacker,” Zacarias Moussaoui, who participated in planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon, was held and prosecuted in the Alexandria courthouse. Others who have been brought to justice in the court include the “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh; Beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad; and spies Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames.

First, the United States of America is a great nation! Our reputation has suffered greatly thanks to Mr. Obama’s apology tour of the world soon after he assumed the presidency. Mr. Obama has been instrumental in presenting the United States in a negative light by issuing apologies to other countries thus damaging our image, not our actions. Still, Americans continue unabated in their practice of the highest principles of human rights and the beacon of freedom around the world. In spite of historical events which could be cause for self-defeatist mentality, Americans forged a -nation of principled people that is forever edged in our heritage and carry-on for generations. Our rule of law is not what we should be examining here but the law of war.

There was no such thing as universal human rights for unlawful combatants to include the prisoners being held at GITMO until 2006 after Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. This case spurred on changes necessary to provide these prisoners with expanded procedural rights under the Military Commissions Act to include the right to be present for their trials and examine evidence against them. This was a well-intentioned improvement in that it helped balance out civilian and military jurisprudence which are very different due to the nature of warfare and these prisoners should not be judged under civilian law so the groundwork was already done.

 The purpose of holding these terrorists, like in any war, is to separate them from the general population, remove them from their familiar environments and people in order to facilitate the extraction of information. Obtaining intelligence crucial to victory over our enemies should be our first order of business and holding them on U.S. soil is counterproductive. The U.S. is holding these terrorists as part of a sound national security policy. By allowing them to be tried here we are opening the door to the exploitation of our judicial system by the enemy and establish a terrible precedent that threatens our national security. The enemy has become rather skilled in how we do business and is busily working to win special treatment and attack our country’s values and beliefs.

Second, just because John McCain says jump off a cliff do we jump off a cliff? McCain has no credibility at all so I don’t know why you invoke his name. He aggressively supported keeping GITMO open for the sake of national security during the presidential campaign only to turn around and side with Barack Obama for its closure after he lost the election. He is too inconsistent for me or Americans of reasonable intelligence to consider his testimony relevant anymore even though he did say many times that closing GITMO would pose a clear and present danger to this country, as did Justice Scalia in 2008. Originally there was no right to habeas corpus for these enemy combatants until 2008 when the Supreme Court suddenly saw it differently and a majority deemed that because the U.S. runs GITMO then these legal rights could be extended to prisoners.

This is an abomination which you should not support in any way. After spearheading the establishment of a more defined policy regarding the imprisonment and prosecution of foreign fighters not covered under our Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions now we have to re-assess these prisoners all over again and determine their legal status. It is up for grabs now to see which of these prisoners will rate freedom due to some procedural mistake or loophole because they come under the habeas corpus. Some will probably walk while others could be tried and have their cases thrown out for lack of evidence, you name it. This is a mess.

Third, any trial held in the U.S. will encourage recruitment of these terrorist groups because they have always hated us, the hate us today and they will hate us tomorrow. There is no changing this and we all have to get used to the idea. Anti-American sentiment comes from the media portrayal of Americans and our way of life and our troops fighting in support of the war on terror; those are the elements feeding their hatred. The media has also created this aura of innocence for our enemies in that no matter how evil they are, how many people they maim or kill, they are always the victim and the U.S. perpetrator of human rights violations. Look at the case of the U.S. Navy Seals who are being shipped back to Iraq for their Courts Martial so that their Iraqi accuser can conveniently stay home and present a stronger case. One those Seals is a Virginian, by the way. He could use some moral support right now, but no love there. How about Lt Michael Behenna, who sits at Fort Leavenworth serving a 20-year sentence for killing a known AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) leader in self defense? Lt. Behenna only rated a five-year sentence reduction after his parents pleaded for him at a clemency board in right here in Virginia. 

Exactly what is this stain on our national character are you referring to Mr. Moran? Have Americans done something against humanity that we need to rectify by relinquishing our rights? I am unconcerned about the fate of these terrorists. These are the same guys who receive more than humane treatment while awaiting trial. They are fed and clothed and allowed to pray and given legal representation.

Like those in any other congressional districts, we Virginians would rather not have terrorism suspects held and tried in our back yard. Should some of the detainees at Guantanamo be sent to the Alexandria courthouse, there is no question that people in the immediate vicinity — more than 10,000 residents and workers during business hours — would be affected. The strain on local law enforcement and other public safety officers would be significant. The media attention following such a decision would probably generate public outrage in some circles over safety concerns, regardless of the security measures implemented. Often, though, doing the right thing is neither popular nor convenient.

There is only thing I agree with you on is that the trial will cause the city financial and security concerns we may not be able to handle, so why support it? This trial is not only potentially expensive and a challenge to law enforcement but also opens the door for terrorists to posture against our great nation and tells enemies that it is open season on America. I would like to know why you believe that Alexandrians should be subjected to the perils of living with these trials instead of encouraging the Obama administration to try them under military justice. This is not a decision to be made by you with the assumption that you have implied consent from the constituency; which you do not. Your job is to bring this issue to Alexandrians directly, hold it up for scrutiny and debates then proceed with or without our approval.

Trying the accused, no matter how heinous the accusation, in a fair and transparent judicial procedure will reestablish our international moral authority and thus strengthen our national security.

I have a problem with the term ‘transparency’ here in that we must be mindful of the potential that our nation’s secrets will be compromised in these proceedings. This word is becoming part of some catch phrase that has nothing to do with national security. You mentioned that high-profile trials of turncoats like Zacarias Moussaoui, John Walker Lindh and John Allen Mohammed or the spy Aldrich Ames have been held in Alexandria as though they had no particular consequence. The difference is that these traitors are U.S. citizens. How can we administer U.S. law for foreign enemies completely if due process is flawed? When many of these loopholes such as not reading them Miranda Warnings or any outrageous claims of not receiving lawful treatment these prisoners could be freed to return to battle and kill more Americans which has already happened. Is this what you mean by serving the common good? 

Maybe you think that they will want to stay here and hang out in Old Town and merge with the rest of Alexandria’s citizens and learn to love America. I truly doubt that is feasible. Come to think of it, if called to serve in such a jury, citizens will be faced with the dilemma of judging people who are not Americans and should not be tried here in the first place. Where exactly do we find a terrorist a jury of his peers? Well Alexandrians are not the Taliban and we have nothing in common with these terrorists and do not feel that we owe them or the world an apology for who we are.

But should President Obama determine that Alexandria needs to play a reasonably limited role in a nationwide effort to bring justice to the Guantanamo detainees and close this unfortunate chapter of American history, I am confident that Alexandrians will stand strong as they always have: gritting their teeth, stiffening their spines and carrying the load required so that the American values of justice and the rule of law are not overridden but, rather, respected and honored, as is our heritage as a great nation.

As far as I am concerned there is no black hole big enough to contain all the evils these terrorists espouse but if there were such a thing I’d vote for it on the spot. If we were to reverse the roles, Americans would never be afforded as much leniency and consideration by other countries as we do to these terrorists, ever. I am appalled that the United States has to lower its standards in the treatment of its citizens in order to please the international community. Ultimately the right thing is for you to pursue what is best for Alexandria which is not to support this trial or any other terrorist trial to be held here and recommend to Mr. Obama to keep Guantanamo open. Alexandrians should not have to be forced to grit our teeth as you say; on the contrary, the object of public service is to protect the citizens from harm through sound policies. At this time, it is doubtful that trying terrorists here will be in the public’s best interest and will further affect your political future.


Alleged Bali bomber may face trial in Washington

Jim Moran – By hosting U.S. terrorism trials Alexandria can serve the nation

The War on Terrorism: Habeas Corpus On and Off the Battlefield

Lawmakers balk at holding Guantanamo Bay detainees in U.S.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

GITMO’s guerrilla lawyers

Freed GITMO terrorist now a network leader

Return to Jihad

Support swells for 3 Navy Seals