Lawyair On The Run

In our men’s Bible study this morning, we delved into Ezekiel 18, where we encountered the evocative phrase, “The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” This ancient wisdom speaks volumes even today, underscoring the undeniable truth that our actions ripple through time, influencing our own lives and those of future generations.

Reflecting on this, it becomes clear that every choice we make—how we interact with our environment, uphold societal norms, or even foster personal habits—creates a legacy. But rather than seeing this as a daunting responsibility, I see it as a divine invitation to enact positive change.

With God’s guidance, we can break cycles of negativity and lay the groundwork for new, beneficial paths. Here’s how we can respond to this call:

1. Seek Wisdom Through Prayer: We align our actions with our deepest values, opening ourselves up to guidance that transcends our limitations and fortifies us with divine support.
2. Embrace Our Responsibility: Recognizing the long-term impact of our actions motivates us to live responsibly. This betters our lives and serves as a beacon for others to emulate.
3. Cultivate Positive Habits: The daily practice of virtues like kindness, patience, and generosity can create waves of positive change. These virtues can ripple through our communities, creating environments that nurture future generations.
4. Learn and Teach: Armed with knowledge from both past successes and failures, we can educate others. By doing so, we prepare the next generation to make informed, wise choices.
5. Forgive and Heal: Forgiveness is a powerful act that releases us from the burdens of past wrongs, whether committed by or against us. It allows us to move forward unshackled, with lighter hearts and clearer minds.

Today, as we reflected on these truths, I felt inspired to approach each day with renewed hope and determination. With faith as our compass, we’re reminded that we’re not alone in this journey. With God’s help, we can ensure the fruits of our labor bring sweetness, not bitterness, to the lives we touch. Let us strive to live so that our legacy has a positive impact, guided by God’s hand.

The catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan on August 26, 2021, is a day that will be etched in the memory of every American who values the sacrifice of our service members. It was a disastrous failure of leadership, not only from President Biden but also from Vice President Harris, who proudly proclaims that she is always the last to leave the room when decisions are being made. Well, if that’s true, she should be held just as accountable for the senseless loss of thirteen brave U.S. service members who were killed in a suicide bombing at Abbey Gate at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul.

This was the deadliest attack on Americans in Afghanistan since August 2011, and it happened because of a failed leadership that put politics before the safety of our troops. Testimony from soldiers on the ground made it clear that they were aware of the threat and had identified the suspected bomber hours before the attack. Yet, their pleas for permission to engage were met with indecision and inaction; their expertise was disregarded and no one was held accountable for their safety.

This failure was not just a tragic mistake—it was a preventable disaster that occurred because of a leadership team more concerned with optics than our military personnel’s lives. The Biden administration, including Harris, who was supposedly deeply involved in these decisions, abandoned our troops and handed over billions of dollars of U.S. military equipment to the Taliban. They left Afghanistan in chaos, emboldened terrorists, and compromised the safety of Americans at home and abroad.

The decision to pull out U.S. forces by the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, without a clear plan or consideration of the on-ground realities, led to the rapid takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. This administration’s reckless withdrawal undermined twenty years of progress and resulted in the deaths of thirteen American servicemen whose lives were cut short because of Biden and Harris’s catastrophic failure to lead.

This tragedy is a stark reminder that leadership matters, and when our leaders fail, the consequences are deadly. It’s time we hold them accountable for their decisions that led to this preventable loss of life and the emboldening of our enemies.

The television show “Yellowstone” is an American drama series that premiered in 2018 on the Paramount Network. The show highlights the conflicts that arise both within and without the Dutton family as they attempt to survive the issues of owning a vast cattle ranch in Montana. John Dutton (played by Kevin Costner) is the head of the family and is a widowed sixth-generation rancher.

John constantly wrestles with challenges brought by his children and that of a bordering Indian reservation, national parks, and corporate America. Within the family, John is almost tyrannical in his control of the ranch; he daily faces the drama caused by his politically-motivated oldest son, his former Navy SEAL youngest son, and his business-savvy daughter. Together, with a motley ranch-hand crew, they face the onslaught of neighbors attempting to take over the massive ranch and its land. The family often settles the issues violently, free from the inspection of the news media or law enforcement. The show is perhaps a study in the rules of the wild west, set in the scenes of a new frontier.

The show has become extremely popular, evidenced by more people watching the final episode of season four than any other show in TV history. The reason is it combined classic American western themes with a modern family. Americans identify with the wild west and its intrigue, where rugged, masculine men handle their problems mano-e-mano instead of running from them or allowing others to do their dirty work. A place where men work hard, play hard and reap the rewards of their efforts. It is the place where dreams come true – where men, and women, can rise from nothing and amass a fortune. A place of endless land and possibilities where all is available for the taking if you have enough grit and strength. And all of that is wrapped in a story as old as man – the tale of love, redemption, death, and power. It all seems to be the American way.

I agree with the show’s premise that our wild past has endured making the present flawed and imperfect. We are imperfect because man struggles and is forever guessing the meaning of life and how to deal with it. We seem to deal with it best when we understand the past and learn from it; we suffer the most when we ignore and eliminate it. Nevertheless, the American west and manifest destiny are a part of the American soul and will continue as a vital part of the American dream. The dream of most men is to be a little better, to offer a little more, and to leave a legacy behind. And for that, Yellowstone hits all the marks perfectly.

What is the FISA Court?

            In 1978, the U.S. Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.), which attempted to allow judicial and Congressional oversight of foreign intelligence surveillance while maintaining required national security [“The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)”]. Congress enacted the legislation in reaction to the Watergate scandal during the Nixon Administration; Americans had become deeply skeptical of federal government warrantless searches using electronic surveillance upon its citizens. The Act was an attempt by Congress to restore trust and lawfulness between the American people and their government (Murse).  

The Act’s provisions allow for electronic surveillance and physical searches to gather foreign intelligence. In addition, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, the President can surveil an individual without a warrant to gain intelligence. Also, as part of the Act, a secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, was established to oversee federal government requests for surveillance warrants. In particular, the oversight by the Court was to ensure proper surveillance of suspected foreign spies inside the U.S. (“The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and FISA Court | Sporcle Blog”).

When and Why Was the Court Established?

As mentioned above, FISC was established as part of the FISA of 1978. Its primary purpose is to issue surveillance warrants to the U.S. government, mainly the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) and the National Security Agency (N.S.A.). Originally, warrants were to be issued to focus on Soviet suspects, but after the fall of the USSR, the purpose changed. Over time, the Courts started giving surveillance orders to monitor individuals or groups suspected of links to terrorism. The Court, located in Washington, DC, operates under strict secrecy; in fact, the Court is housed in a sound-proof room located in the U.S. District Court near the White House (“The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and FISA Court | Sporcle Blog”).

Eleven federal judges sit on the FISC, and each is appointed by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for a seven-year term; the judges do not appear before the Senate for confirmation. FISA requires that the judges represent seven U.S. Judicial circuits, and three judges live within twenty miles of Washington, DC. The judges rotate on the bench one week at a time (Murse).

An application for a warrant must be presented to an individual Judge; the Judge reviews the application for authorization. Even with a formal process, it is rare that FISA warrants are denied. Between 2009 and 2015, out of 10,700 applications, only two were denied (Emanuel). Even if denied, the United States Attorney General can issue emergency surveillance approval as long as notification is given to the FISC within seven days (“What is a FISA Court”).

The FISA established two Courts: the FISC has authority over FISA applications, while the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) may consider FISC appeals. Applications for electronic or physical surveillance must contain nine specific details, such as the targets name, description of the search, proposed minimization procedures, and how the search will occur, among other requirements (“Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); An Overview”). In addition, the government must show probable cause that the subject is a foreign power or agent and is using the place where the surveillance is to take place. Since all hearings are confidential, monitoring the probable cause or accuracy of the government’s requests is challenging (“About the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court | Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court | United States”).

What relevance does the Court have to current events?

            Due to no public monitoring of the FISC’s activities, it is difficult to know what the Court has done. However, in 2013, Edward Snowden, an employee of both the N.S.A. and F.B.I., leaked a FISC warrant to The Guardian, a United Kingdom newspaper. The top-secret document he released detailed the mass collection of telephone metadata by Verizon Wireless. The leak revealed that major American and international corporations (Apple, Facebook, Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft) were all responsible for collecting this data at the expense of American citizens. The number of documents that Snowden downloaded is estimated to be over 1.5 million. The documents contained sensitive information of which the N.S.A. claimed would harm American surveillance attempts; in his defense, Snowden claimed he released the documents to show the level to which Americans have been subject to surveillance on the approval of FISC (“What is FISA Court”).

            Investigators have recently sought evidence from the FISC of whether President Obama ordered Donald Trump’s phones to be tapped during his candidacy. It appears that a joint task force (which included the F.B.I., D.O.J., C.I.A., and N.S.A.) was formed to determine the credibility of money paid directly to Trump’s campaign from the Soviet Union. The B.B.C. claims the group applied to the FISC for a wiretap of Trump’s phones; the warrant was initially denied but issued in 2016 (Hurley). If proven correct, the credibility of the Court is placed back in the spotlight, and Congress will once again have to step up and correct the mess created by spying on American citizens as it attempted to do in 1978.

Works Cited

“About the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court | Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court | United States.” Uscourts.gov, 2013, http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/about-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court.

Emanuel. “Only 1 in 10,000 FISA Requests Was Denied in 6 Years — Obama’s First Request to Wiretap Trump Denied in 2016 – the Patriot Nation.” The Patriot Nation, 11 June 2021, thepatriotnation.net/obamas-first-request-wiretap/. Accessed 14 Nov. 2021.

Fisher), Deborah. “Surveillance and Wiretapping.” Www.mtsu.edu, mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1153/surveillance-and-wiretapping.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): An Overview. 21 Apr. 2021.

Hurley, Lawrence. “U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Weigh Public Access to Surveillance Court Rulings.” Reuters, 1 Nov. 2021, http://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-declines-weigh-public-access-surveillance-court-rulings-2021-11-01/. Accessed 14 Nov. 2021.

Murse, Tom. “What Does the Secretive FISA Court Do and Who Are the Judges?” ThoughtCo, 21 Dec. 2018, http://www.thoughtco.com/fisa-court-4137599.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and FISA Court | Sporcle Blog. 29 July 2017, http://www.sporcle.com/blog/2017/07/what-is-the-fisa-court/. Accessed 14 Nov. 2021.

“The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).” Bureau of Justice Assistance, bja.ojp.gov/program/it/privacy-civil-liberties/authorities/statutes/1286. Accessed 13 Nov. 2021.

“What Is a FISA Court?” FindLaw, 15 June 2013, http://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/what-is-a-fisa-court/. Accessed 13 Nov. 2021.

What Is FISA Court? 26 Apr. 2021, caseguard.com/articles/what-is-fisa-court/. Accessed 14 Nov. 2021.

To understand the American Intelligence Community (I.C.), we must first define it. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s website, the “U.S. Intelligence Community is a federation of executive branch agencies and organizations that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities necessary for the conduct of foreign relations and the protection of the national security of the United States. The I.C. remains focused on the missions of cyber intelligence, counterterrorism, counterproliferation, counterintelligence, and on the threats posed by state and non-state actors challenging U.S. national security and interests worldwide.” Its customers include the President, National Security Council, Heads of Departments and Agencies of the Executive Branch, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior military commanders, and the Congress.      

The overall mission of these entities is to be an agile, integrated whole working together while reflecting America’s values operating under the rule of law (ODNI). The entities use various means of intelligence collection to achieve these means. There are six basic collection disciplines: Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), Imagery Intelligence (IMINT), Measurement and Signals Intelligence (MASINT), Human Intelligence (HUMINT), Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT), and Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT). These resources attempt to provide unbiased information to those with a need to know.

The intelligence collected protects us against terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons (proliferation), chemical/biological warfare, information infrastructure (internet) attacks, and narcotics trafficking. Seventeen federal organizations are tasked with these significant goals. The information provided to policymakers must be timely and pertinent; it is a difficult task at best. The manner and means of informing those that require the information change often as presidents come and go and their working styles change.  

The Intelligence Community has changed dramatically since the failures that lead to 9/11. The community moved from a ‘need to know’ to a ‘responsibility to share’ format with policymakers. 9/11 offered us many lessons on facing down threats of terror. It showed us that policymakers and intelligence must work together to provide for American interests and not simply respond to the world after the fact.  Since the changes were brought about, there have been many anti-terror successes; one such controversial win was the “Lackawanna Six.”

In 2002, the FBI arrested six American men of Yemeni descent in upstate New York (five were born and raised in Lackawanna, NY). The press called them the Lackawanna Six. The men, recruited by al-Qaeda “closer” Juma al-Dorsi, claimed they were going to Pakistan to attend a religious camp but had attended an al-Qaeda training facility in Afghanistan. Seven men had left for the jihad training, which included a weapons course in Al Farooq and meetings with Osama bin Laden in Kandahar; six returned to the United States and showed no plotting during the following months. The Lackawanna Six never told any U.S. authorities what they had learned before 9/11 (they each heard bin Laden discuss 40 operatives who were en route for a critical suicide mission–the suicide hijackings of 9/11).

In June 2001, the FBI’s Buffalo, N.Y. field office received an anonymous letter stating that the group had left to meet with bin Laden and stayed in an al-Qaeda training camp. The sole FBI agent working on counterterrorism gets the letter. He runs a background check on the individuals named and is skeptical they would be involved with al-Qaeda, but he sends the letter up the chain of command and opens an investigation. Authorities stop three men returning from Pakistan at JFK because they are now on the FBI’s watch list; they are questioned and released.

In November 2001, al Dorsi (the man who recruited the men and ‘closed’ the deal) was captured in Afghanistan and transferred to Guantanamo. During interrogation, he reveals several aliases and his recruiting efforts in Lackawanna, NY. The Intelligence Community realizes they have already intercepted communications between bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders based on the aliases. The FBI received this information in May of 2002, and they resumed monitoring the six men. In September, Bush administration officials meet to discuss what to do with the six men. Some officials in the cabinet wanted to lock them up indefinitely as “enemy combatants, while others wanted to pursue legal means. Attorney General John Ashcroft won out by bringing a criminal case of providing “material support” to al-Qaeda. The six are charged, and all pleaded guilty in 2003; they received between seven and ten-year sentences.

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 afforded the government Intelligence Community new tools for investigative and intelligence gathering. An essential part of the Act allowed for the sharing of information between criminal and national security investigations. In the Lackawanna Six case, the anonymous letter detailed a potential terrorist plot and criminal activity. The FBI pursued it as a single investigation rather than two (one criminal, one national security). Whether the Lackawanna Six would have ever used the knowledge they gained in Afghanistan for the terrorist activity will never be known. Thankfully, members of the Intelligence Community foiled the plot for which the Six possibly trained, which alone is of great significance to the American people.

U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has a long and proud history dating back to the establishment of our nation. The colonies in the early years faced multiple problems, including the inability to fund their collective requirements, such as war debts. To raise revenue, the new Congress passed Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Tariff Act in 1789. The Act raised needed funds for the young Republic (“1789: First Congress…,” 2014).

Congress then created a Treasury Department to oversee the collection of money and the administration of customs from the flow of goods into the new nation. As the flow of goods and people increased over the next century, Congress also created a Bureau of Immigration to assist with the vast number of immigrant arrivals—mainly to collect the tax new immigrants were required to pay on entry into the country (Mazzeno, n.d.). Both federal government departments (Customs and Immigration) operated separately until 2001. In that year, because of a terror attack on U.S. soil, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which in 2003 merged the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to form ICE (“History of ICE,” 2021).

The U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s mission is clear, which is to protect “the United States from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security and public safety” (“Immigration and Customs…,” 2020). ICE is a law enforcement element of the DHS. It has grown to over 20,000 employees with a budget in 2021 of $8.3 billion (“American Immigration…,” 2021). However, the House Appropriations Fiscal Year 2022 Homeland Security Funding Bill proposes a decrease to $7.97 billion (“Appropriations Committee…,” 2021). ICE consists of four directorates: Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Management and Administration (M&A), and Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA).

ERO has 8,500 employees in all 50 states, four territories, and twenty countries responsible for enforcing immigration laws through enforcement and removal of illegal aliens, especially those that threaten national security. HSI is responsible for investigating terrorist and other criminal organizations that threaten national security; it does so with 6,500 special agents and 700 intelligence analysts assigned to more than 200 cities throughout the U.S. and sixty offices in forty-five countries. M&A tracks the agency’s performance measurements, maintains the budget, procurement activities, and leads the recruitment efforts. OPLA is the largest legal Department within the DHS, with over 1,250 attorneys across the country. It is the sole representative of the DHS in immigration removal proceedings before the Executive Office of Immigration Review; the attorneys litigate the removal of undocumented criminal individuals, terrorists, and human rights abuses (Cerza, 2018).

Since the beginning of our nation, those tasked to enforce the law have faced a burden; they carry the weight of maintaining order while performing those duties in the ever-changing political winds. ICE, as an enforcement branch, feels that burden. As a result, a movement to abolish ICE has gained national attention over the last few years, championed primarily by U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI). Ocasio-Cortez campaigned using the abolition of ICE as her primary issue, mistaking its function with that of the Customs and Border Patrol (Waxman, 2018). Others have joined the chorus, including special agents of the HSI.  The agents claim the difference between ERO and their directorate is great enough to create separate agencies (Levinson-Waldman, 2018).

In addition to the above concerns, ICE faces further challenges as outlined by the DHS Office of Inspector General. Issues such as screening of aliens, detention center treatment, allocation and expenditures, and lack of communication among federal and state units continue to plaque the Department (“Immigration½Office of …,” 2018).  As a result of these concerns, ICE has become controversial and faces specific challenges overcoming political posturing; whether it survives is up to the U.S. Congress.

Whether Congress abolishes ICE or not, its functions will continue to be needed. As a result, the need for qualified personnel to fulfill the jobs will continue. ICE needs a diverse workforce and offers competitive salaries, excellent benefits, and career advancement. The four directorates require a multitude of different skills and education levels. A recent look on USAJOBS (the federal government’s official job website) revealed thirty-six job postings; the positions ranged from Legal Assistant at multiple locations (salary: $30,414) to Deputy Assistant Director in Washington, DC (salary: $144,128). A federal resume is required to be submitted, and there is no fee associated with the application. The government gives preference to current or former federal employees and members of the armed forces. If hired, both ERO and HSI law enforcement personnel attend training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). In addition to the open jobs market, ICE offers The Pathways Program to current students, recent graduates, and advanced degrees; it is a special hiring authority to offer paid federal internships and employment opportunities. (“Career Frequently Asked…,” 2021). For those qualified and looking for an interesting career in law enforcement involving national security, ICE would be an exciting start.

Works Cited

“1789: First Congress Provides for Customs Administration.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 25 Apr. 2014, http://www.cbp.gov/about/history/1789-first-congress-provides-customs-administration.

American Immigration Council. “The Cost of Immigration Enforcement and Border Security.” American Immigration Council, 21 Jan. 2021, http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/the-cost-of-immigration-enforcement-and-border-security.

“Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2022 Homeland Security Funding Bill.” House Committee on Appropriations, 29 June 2021, appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/appropriations-committee-releases-fiscal-year-2022-homeland-security-funding.

“Career Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).” Www.ice.gov, http://www.ice.gov/careers/faqs#what-is-ero. Accessed 19 Sept. 2021.

Cerza, Sydney. “Fact Sheet: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – National Immigration Forum.” National Immigration Forum, 10 July 2018, immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-ice/.

“History of ICE.” Ice.gov, 26 Jan. 2021, http://www.ice.gov/features/history.

“Immigration | Office of Inspector General.” Www.oig.dhs.gov, 14 Dec. 2018, http://www.oig.dhs.gov/news/press-releases/immigration.

“Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” Department of Homeland Security, 4 Nov. 2020, http://www.dhs.gov/topic/immigration-and-customs-enforcement.

Levinson-Waldman, Rachel. “The Abolish ICE Movement Explained.” Brennan Center for Justice, 30 July 2018, http://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/abolish-ice-movement-explained.

Mazzeno, Laurence W. “U.S. Bureau of Immigration.” Immigration to the United States, http://www.immigrationtounitedstates.org/394-us-bureau-of-immigration.html. Accessed 19 Sept. 2021.

Waxman, Olivia B. “The ‘Abolish ICE’ Movement Is Growing. Here’s Why the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Was Created.” New York News, 29 June 2018, newyorktonight.wordpress.com/2018/06/30/the-abolish-ice-movement-is-growing-heres-why-the-u-s-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-agency-was-created/.

The Posse Comitatus Act results from the American abhorrence of not using a standing military to impose public laws against its citizens. In the mid-1700s, the use of the British army to enforce unpopular tax laws helped ignite the American Revolution; the police powers of those troops left a nasty taste upon the young republic and its inhabitants. Yet, even with such disdain for the “power of the county,” many federal officials in the early nineteenth century continued to deputize troops to assist local law enforcement.

The practice of using posse comitatus in the aftermath of the Civil War entangled it with state rights and race issues. Federal officials deputized occupation troops in the south to enforce voting and other civil rights laws. Using such powers was highly unpopular with southerners and ended with the election compromise of 1877. Samuel Tilton, a Democrat, had beaten Rutherford Hayes, a Republican, in the popular vote of 1876. In the settlement, several southern states supported Hayes in the Electoral College in exchange for troop withdrawal. The compromise ended Reconstruction and allowed Congress to legislate criminal charges against the use of the military for posse purposes.

 

The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) of 1878, as amended (Title 18, USC, Section 1385), simply states, “Whoever, except in cases and under the circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Acts of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” The wording is simple and perhaps obscure. Former Reagan civil defense director John Brinkerhoff stated in 2002, “Seldom has so much been derived from so little.” Many Presidents have walked the fine line defined in the vague legislation, often calling upon active federal troops to supplement local law enforcement in the management, preemption, and deterrence of violence against domestic populations. The legality and ability to use the military are often justified under the many exemptions to the law, but the use of troops still falls under the auspice and control of local law enforcement; the power of the assisting military is limited to assistance and not enforcing the law.

 

            The military, all branches except the Coast Guard, seem to have a long-standing reluctance to participate with local police departments in search, seizure, and arrest; yet the PCA, as authorized by the Insurrection Act, allows for federal troops acting under presidential power to enforce laws. President Eisenhower used it to implement school integration; President Johnson and President George H. W. Bush used it to suppress race riots. Presidents Obama and Trump used the military to support the Border Patrol during their terms. In brief, a President has enormous powers to protect the rights of the citizens with military force.

 

The Posse Comitatus Act served a political purpose to move America forward during the late 1800s. Its value to prevent the overuse of military enforcement of civilian laws is still sound. Yet, considering the ever-changing security threats to America, the exceptions to the PCA seem to be more vital than ever; the authority of the President and Congress to quell threatening emergencies is paramount to our security. The American people accept the use of the military when dictated, and they are quick to forget its use, especially when defending our nation against its enemies. In short, active-duty military personnel should be allowed to serve under state and Presidential command, and the Posse Comitatus Act, with it exceptions, should remain federal law.

     Was September 11th, 2001 “the day that changed America?” Some say that life is a cycle, and what has gone before often returns. Terrorism creates both unrest and fear and gets attention; it has been a repeated cycle throughout history.   Having seen chaos and terrorism up close, the videos presented in this assignment drove home my experiences and unified my feelings.

     As a young Naval carrier pilot dispatched to the Mediterranean aboard the USS Eisenhower, world events shaped my life’s views. For example, in 1983, Hezbollah jihadists murdered 241 Marines in a suicide bombing in Lebanon. President Reagan and his advisors reacted to that affair by bringing the might of the U.S. Navy to that area—I was along for a first-class view. Further, in 1984, the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi toyed with the Sixth Fleet, threatening to turn the Gulf of Sidra into a “sea of blood.” Again, I was part of America’s reaction to the threat. Both incidents touched my soul and taught me lessons.

     I learned early on that unexpected, violent actions create fear and unrest. I also knew that preparation for unpredictable chaos is not always possible and that even the mightiest of powers get surprised. During that time, I flew the best and brightest on and off the carrier, men at the highest levels of military and government echelons. I flew missions of national importance. Not only that but I was involved in airstrikes that were launched and called back on the whim of political maneuvering. My takeaway then, as now, is that many in power are guessing and trying their best to stay one step ahead of destruction.

     When I left the military, I joined the ranks of commercial aviation. Aviation is a dangerous occupation, not only from flying the metal but from threats created by outside forces. At the time Delta Air Lines hired me in 1985, hijackings were ordinary. The airlines and the FAA taught pilots not to resist the hijacker but deal with their demands, even allowing them access to the cockpit. Who knew the extent to which Islamic extremists would take advantage of that “calmness’ and turn planes into missiles? It was a hard lesson for aviation and America.

     On that tragic day in 2001, four of the eight pilots were Naval aviators, men who had trained the same way I had. Men that served during the Cold War and pursued an occupation just like I had. American Captain Charles Burlingame had flown in the same squadron as a good friend of mine. United Captain Victor Saracini flew the same airplane I did, only in a different squadron years earlier. I had a bond with them, although remote. I knew what was going through their minds and what they faced on the morning of September 11th, and it was sickening.

     The videos presented in this assignment brought back memories I had forgotten, like how a typical day can turn surreal and unexplainable. Or how our minds often grasp answers that are not available and how easy it is to disrupt innocence. Watching the videos hearkened me back to how men in power and positions of authority can get it so wrong and be so adamant about their incorrect statements and policies. As I watched the broadcasts, I could see my 45-year-old self staring at the TV in disbelief as I put on my uniform to go to work. The next few days came to a standstill.

     I had been a Captain for five years at that point and had flown in and out of both JFK and LaGuardia many times. Never did I imagine that what I was seeing could be possible. My mind tried to establish why the first airplane struck the World Trade Center; the TV commentators said it was a small plane—I saw differently. I thought it was a missed approach that had gone wrong, but even that made little sense to me because it was a clear day. No crew would intentionally fly a jet into a building.

     Then the second jet crashed into the other Tower, and I realized it wasn’t an accident but something sinister and deliberate. The sight chilled me. When I regained my composure, I tried to call Delta scheduling and could not get through. Aviation at that point was grounded in America. Time slowed down, and I continued the day continued glued to the TV and talking to family and friends. America was under attack, and it was a well-thought-out military operation by al-Qaeda operatives that had taken years to develop—America had all the watches, but they had all the time.

     As that day unfolded, it became apparent that America was caught off guard and was ill-prepared for a military strike on its shores. We had placed little emphasis on a response to the terrorism of that scale and no ability to recognize coordination of enemy combatants. Something needed to be done, and in typical fashion, an expansion of the federal bureaucracy was undertaken. An entirely new Department was created by gathering bits and pieces of other government entities. The goal, I think, was to coordinate communication and streamline the system. Thus, homeland Security was born and continues to morph and grow. I often question its efficacy and size, even though I feel it is necessary.

     As I concluded watching the videos for this assignment, my reflections were deepened and perhaps solidified. Twenty years later, it seems we have learned very little. Instead, we are now in a bigger jam than when we started. The cycle continues because of ill-thought-out political policies and playing word games to save face with an enemy sworn to destroy us. Will elected officials, political appointees, and others have viable answers. I doubt it. Who will pay the price? We will soon learn once again as the cycle continues.

I came home from Paris today. After a nine hour and forty-eight minute flight, I had to catch Lyft home. My wife was busy and my truck is being repaired; so, I resorted to the convenience of that ride sharing company for a lift home. It was fortuitous and fast.

As luck would have it, I was assigned a driver that was a student at Kennesaw State University. Dessen is a twenty three year old Computer Science major in his last year of college. He uses Lyft to supplement his income and support his hobby and passion. He starts working at 0600 every morning and is finished by noon. He clears about one hundred dollars a day, which is currently enough to allow him to live his life style.

Dessen was born into a family of twelve kids. He was raised by a single mom He still tries to help her out and assist his sisters that live with her… the extra income he earns from driving helps him do that. He was one of the most amazing young men that I have met in a long time. In a world where so many youth are rebelling and demand something for nothing, Dessen is looking to give back. He works hard. He knows the value of a dollar and his attitude is amazing. It renewed my faith and gave me hope.

You see, Dessen’s passion is wrestling. He claimed it saved his life. Originally, he started out seeking to be a teacher and spent a few years chasing that dream. But he became disheartened with the current school system, its lack of discipline, and its softness. He couldn’t instruct or discipline the students as he felt they needed. He said he could not see himself being a baby sitter for thirty kids and their overbearing and overprotective parents. So, he switched to computer studies, which he loved. It was a way to follow his true goals…instructing today’s youth in wrestling and the mental lessons they gain from that sport. He said he would love to open a wrestling gym someday, and I have no doubt he will.

Why wrestling, I asked? His response was immediate. The sport is individual and makes you responsible for your own decisions. Unlike football or baseball, you cannot go fifty percent one play or pitch, loaf or daydream, but must go one hundred percent all the time. It makes you accountable. Your loss isn’t a team loss, but your own. You own the matt or your opposition owns you.

He said his first match in Junior High School was a disaster. He lost big time. In fact, he said he was crushed. But it lit a fire within him; he knew he wasn’t the stud he thought he was. He would have to man up, study up, and gain strength to compete, and he did. He went on the wrestle at the State Championship levels and built up his self esteem and confidence at the same time. He was focused and didn’t have time for other activities that landed his friends and cousins in jail. It saved his life.

As he drove, he further explained to me the benefits of his daily meditation practice; how slowing down and relaxing has allowed him to see more clearly. He has shared his practice with his younger sisters, of which he said they are appreciative. I could feel his calmness and his humble sense of worth.

I mentioned that I worked with the father of the World Champion Freestyle Wrestler, David Taylor. He couldn’t believe it. David, he said, is his hero. He has followed David and his accomplishments for a long, long time…since David wrestled at Penn State. He said he tried to pattern himself after David…humble, driven, and to give back to society. He admired his hero…a lot. I think Dessen has accomplished that goal of emulating his virtual mentor, for he too is inspiring..

So, out of pure luck, today I shared a ride with a man that gave me much more than I gave him. He gave me hope and inspiration. He taught me, once again, you cannot judge a book by its cover and that you can learn from everybody, no matter their walk of life. People are amazing and good can even found in the most unexpected places. Let’s all learn from Dessen, to be accountable, to believe in yourself and your own worth, and to slow down and not be so uptight. I believe we can all use those lessons.

Today was a good day.

The end is in sight. After forty years of flying, I am coming up on the last days of taking to the air in an occupation I love. It is hard to give it up. I’m not ready, but the federal government mandates that I hang up the keys to the jets.

It is weird to go to work, enter the pilot lounge, and see the retirement pictures of good friends on the wall. Friends and fellow pilots with whom I have shared so much of my life. We started off as greenhorns and slowly worked our way up through the ranks. Finally, we are at the top of the heap and it’s time to go. Not voluntarily, but by mandate.

Somehow, sixty five is the cutoff…a time where the powers that be say you are no longer able to function as a pilot in command. That your cognitive and physical abilities put people at risk. That no matter your mental or physical abilities, you should no longer be able to fly people to their destinations. It’s arbitrary and capricious. The guidelines say it’s time to sit down, give it up, and move on.

So over the next six months, I will try to capture for you what I feel and what I have learned. Six months isn’t a long time. It will go by in the blink of an eye. But hopefully, I can share my experience with you. My feelings. My insights. My adventures. My dreams. My hopes. It’s not the way I would choose to go, but it is what it is. Bear with me and let me vent and share. I hope we both grow and get something out of these posts. Keep climbing.