Since then, Lieutenant Colonel (at the time Major) Kareem saw to it that the son of a whore who set off that IED was brought to justice. He took the attack very personally. He is one of the very few people I met in Iraq that I would loved to have hosted here in the US, or even taken my family to visit in a few years. Unfortunately, he was killed by another son of whore later that year.

The Lieutenant Colonel Kareem's of Iraq will be the people who give the average people hope - and the courage to forge a new Iraq, free of the murdering son's of whores.

But other things have happened in this year. I came to truly appreciate and understand the depths of love, and inner strength that my darling wife has. The trauma I suffered physically and emotionally cannot begin to compare with the ordeal she faced in putting me back together again. When she finally smartens up and sees what a rat bastard I am, I’ll miss her.

Indeed, most of us think that, Chuck! ;^) Of course, that's true for most Warrior Spouses, including mine.

Chuck concludes with:

My life would be very different now if I’d never been wounded. It’d be normal, or relatively so. But I think that through all of the turbulence that we’ve seen this past year, I’m a better husband, father, and soldier for what I’ve experienced. All things considered, a normal life now is what we make of it.

But you'd be depriving yourself if you didn't go to Chuck's place and read the rest.

The NECC unifies existing Navy functions, such as naval construction (better known as the Seabees), logistics, ordnance disposal, diving and salvage, as well as maritime protection. But the program’s creation of a riverine force, capable of fighting on river waters, is stirring up controversy on the Hill.

Traditionally, the Marine Corps, the Navy’s land component, has provided the riverine forces, and several lawmakers are concerned that the Navy is trying to duplicate something the Marines specialize in. (ed: ? emphasis added)

“It made me question whether they are going to develop another Marine Corps,” Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, told The Hill.

Being a capable land force with ability to fight up rivers in inland areas “was the only historical reason for the Marine Corps,” Hefley said. “The Marine Corps is not a separate branch” of the Navy — it’s part of it, he added. “Just bring more people into the Marine Corps.”
***
Rear Adm. Don Bullard, the NECC commander, is adamant in pointing out that his newly minted command is not duplicating Marine Corps capabilities but that it works in “close concert” with the Marines.

The NECC “is a high-end defensive force focused on anti-terrorism and force protection,” Bullard said in an interview. “The naval infantry is the Marine Corps, [but] they welcomed it.”
***
“We looked at where we needed to be and [saw that] we needed to expand and bring new capabilities like the riverine force,” Bullard said.

But the House Armed Services Committee took a drastic approach toward the new command in the 2007 defense authorization bill. The authorizers stipulated that the Navy cannot spend any money from its operation and maintenance accounts for the NECC until the Navy meets 100 percent of its requirements for ship and air operations as well as maintenance.

The House also requires the secretary of the Navy to submit a report with the annual budget request certifying that the requirements are met.

There is a school of thought that says future wars will be similar to that in the Middle East, with small, mobile forces needed on land and on inland waterways. In that kind of war, missions for deep-draft ships - a bluewater Navy - besides aircraft carriers can be limited.

"Certainly, there's a lot going on in blue water (still), and certainly the Navy has a mission there," said Jordan. "But (brown water) is an area in which the Navy can flex its muscles and make a difference."

The NECC is designed to encompass up to 40,000 sailors, according to Bullard. Members of the Reserve will make up 45 percent of the force, he said.

“We have an NECC unit of some type in every state of the country,” said Bullard. “When you look at Congress, [lawmakers] have constituents in their state.”

As one of seven U.S. sponsors at this summer's World Cup in Germany, Anheuser-Busch paid $40 million for "pouring rights" at 12 stadiums across Germany, something Germans and tourists have had trouble swallowing.

Simply put, Germans hate Budweiser. Weeks before the inaugural games kicked off the Cup, Germans were furious at the prospect of having to drink what they refer to as "dishwater" at stadiums. Germans even set up a Web site with an image of an American Eagle vomiting beer to lampoon the American brewer and express their disgust.

"Human dignity is inviolable," reads the Web site, quoting the German constitution. The Web site goes on to call Budweiser "an insult to all true beer lovers" and an "insult to your tongue."

But if you think FIFA's slight of US troops was extreme, just read what they did to a group of fans from the Netherlands:

Soccer's governing body — the Federation Internationale de Football, or FIFA — did little to improve Budweiser's standing when it forced thousands of Dutch fans to watch the first round Holland-Ivory Coast game in their underwear. Close to a quarter million Dutch fans have purchased orange-colored shorts to support their team, shorts that carry the logo of the Dutch beer, Bavaria.

In a contentious move to protect Budweiser's rights, FIFA officials forced Dutch supporters to remove their shorts.

"It's ridiculous," said Sjoerd Schreurs, a Dutch fan quoted by The Guardian in London. "I took my trousers off. I managed to chuck them over the fence to some friends. But another official spotted them and took them away."

No word on whether they drowned their shame in Budweiser.

I love the World Cup, by the way. In fact, the England - Portugal quarterfinal is about to get underway. Time to pour a Guinness and enjoy the game.

Swift's first supervisor at the Office of Commissions was Col. Will Gunn, who said Friday that he gave Swift two annual fitness reports and "I gave him very high ratings overall." Asked whether he thought politics might have played a role in Swift being bypassed for promotion, Gunn focused on Swift's atypical career as a military lawyer. "Charlie has spent a lot of time as a litigator, a trial advocate. That's really unusual in the JAG. You find that people in the more senior ranks have moved around and proved themselves in a variety of settings." Most of Swift's career has been spent in the courtroom. "While Charlie is a brilliant guy, a tenacious litigator, he does not have all the blocks checked like some other folks have," Gunn said. He called it a "breadth-of-experience" issue.

The board results are already at the SecDef's office, and should be out in a couple of weeks. Based on the historical numbers, he probably doesn't have much of a chance, but maybe the Board did decide to give him another chance. What I do know is that if I had ever been brought up on charges, I would have wanted someone like LCDR Swift to be my JAG. While some of us might not agree with the arguments he made to the Court (I personally do agree with them), I think we can all agree that he did his duty with honor, and is a credit to the U.S. Navy.

Briefly, Art 36 says that such commissions should basically follow court-martial proceedings, but the Pres can deviate from those proceedings "where practicable." The President has made such a determination, the Court didn't accept the justification (and seemed unwilling to entertain any such justification).

Accordingly, the Court determined that such commissions must marry-up almost identically to court-martial proceedings. Including all its protections and (presumably) rules of evidence and whatnot.

This leads into the second rising meme that "Congress can fix this." Well, perhaps. But realistically speaking, Congress is unlikely to try to reinvent the wheel. What would their reference be for such military commissions? Either domestic criminal trials or court-martials.

That being said, Senator Arlen Specter has apparently a bill designed to counter Hamdan. BenchMemos has a summary of its sections, of note are the following:

Section 303: Authorizing Military Commissions: Authorizes the president to establish military commissions for the trial of individuals for offenses provided in this title.

This addresses the Court's problem (unwarranted, IMO) that Congress had to specifically authorize military commissions prior to their establishment by the president. How the AUMF can enable the President to use all necessary means of force to conduct a war, yet somehow not be able to administer the war is beyond me. But anyway, that question is answered for the Court here.

As to the biggie, what procedures are to apply, the proposed act has this:

Section 312 & 313: Criminal Prosecution Procedures: Provides that Military Commission procedures will be the same as the current procedures afforded by detainees under the current system.

Hopefully this would pass muster with the Court, but who knows. And why do I say "who knows?"

But if this doesn't get sufficient votes, what then? More likely they'd try to pass the buck and give the President the authority to make such variances to the court-martial procedure as he sees fit. Well, that was tried and the Court said "nyet."

Look, Congress can be notoriously lazy. I have little hope that a Congress so divided can come up with anything remotely workable on this issue.

Heck, even when they can get together and pass the Detainee Treatment Act, which was supposed to prevent Hamdan from even getting to the Court, the Court said "we don't care." So even if Congress does pass something semi-substantive, I'd be surprised to find the Court look favorably on such a determination.

This leads back into the applicability of Common Article 3--if its applicability matters, it's in this scenario:

SCOTUS rules that CA3 applies and that current mil commissions are a no-go.

Congress attempts to fix this by amending the UCMJ to allow for "military commissions, detainee edition"

Case comes up before SCOTUS and court rules that Congress's version violates Common Article 3's requirement that sentences be issued "by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."