Land Exchange

The proposed Upper Lochsa land exchange seems to be the “hot button” subject here in Idaho County at the moment, so… I’ll weigh in on the subject, along with nearly everyone else who lives around here, and a lot of folks that don’t. For starters, and at the risk of getting everybody mad at me, I’ll say that I can sympathize with our County Commissioners on this bucket of worms, as they’re caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place! It looks like whatever they do will be the wrong thing in the eyes of the community, and that’s a bad place for any politician to find himself.

The problem started when WPT (Western Pacific Timber) purchased nearly 40,000 acres of privately owned land on the Lochsa River drainage. The land has been logged in the past, replanted, and is currently growing quite nicely. WPT’s plan was to “trade” these 40,000 acres to the forest service who would love to get their hands on it (probably so that they can take it out of production, decommission the roads and trails, and in general ban public access in the interest of environmentalism). The proposal was to trade for other (timbered) forest lands scattered across northern Idaho. Past that point, WPT’s plans get rather murky.

As required by their own regulations, the Forest Circus… Service, asked for public comment on the proposal, which is what brought the County Commissioners into the discussion. Knowing that they can only make suggestions, their response to the Forest Service quite clearly states that they much prefer “Option A”, which is “take no action”, or in other words “fugid aboudit”. However, being realists, they also recognize that the federal government is going to do whatever they (and the environuts) darn well please, no matter what the local folks wish, or who gets hurt.

But now things start getting sticky. Along with all the usual problems they face, the Commissioners understand that their primary job is to take care of the County as a whole, which means to keep us economically afloat, working, and out of bankruptcy court, unlike what some eastern communities are presently facing. Economically however, the county faces a disaster, in that the Craig/Wyden and SRS funds (handed us as a result of the feds cutting off our timber supply), are about to end, and that could very nearly put us completely out of business! That loss is about 10 million dollars a year into the county coffers, and will no longer be available to an annual budget of roughly 13 million dollars. Adding to that problem, if we loose 40 or so thousand acres of private land and the taxes (about 12% of our property taxes I understand) that go with it, we’re in the position of “now what?” Remember the assorted public services that the majority of our voters demand the county provide? Well, they have to be paid for somehow, so with a major budget shortfall, which ones do you want eliminated? How many school teachers do you want to lay-off? I suppose we could just ignore our roads, but what happens when they go completely to potholes? Our justice system will take a hit I’m sure, and I pity the sheriffs department, trying to “protect and serve” without the wherewithal to do so. Indigent health care, mandated by state law, is going to get hurt, and I suppose parts of energy assistance as well. Just about everything the county does is going to be cut back of necessity! Sure we can buffer the impact somewhat, by increasing local taxes, but where do we draw the line on that?

Anyway, as an alternative, the county commissioners suggested that the entire land swap take place within Idaho County, and thus leaving our local tax base relatively unscathed. Part of that process includes suggesting to WPT and the Forest Service that assorted forest lands within the county could be traded without doing quite as much damage as the original proposal. Most of the county suggested lands were in two fairly large plots, one behind Harpster and the other up near Glenwood. That put everything back into the forest service’s decision making process. The Forest Service, and the Nez Perce tribe, joined forces in looking at the county proposal (which has not yet and may never be accepted) and changed the entire county proposal around, deciding that the majority of those exchangeable lands should be in the vicinity of Grangeville and Riggins. And that brought on a scream of agony from the commissioners… and a whole lot of the county’s citizens!

So now we have the “Stop the Swap” movement on the scene, vehemently protesting the whole idea! Much of this protest objects to the “privatization” (read that as posting “No Trespassing” signs) of prime recreational lands that at present are accessible to hunters, snowmobilers, 4 wheelers, berry pickers, and whomever. Unfortunately, the protests are directed primarily at the county commissioners, instead of where our objections might do some good, which is the US Forest Service… and of course the US Congress! After all, Congress has the exclusive power to manage and dispose of public lands and property (Article IV, Section 3 of the constitution states: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;"). With that, federal land management agencies have no actual authority over public lands, they have only the authority which Congress has specifically delegated to them. (‘course I don’t recommend that you run off into the woods, and totally ignore whatever regulation you happen to be upset about.)

Part of the “Stop the Swap” anger being directed at the commissioners is based on the precept that constitutionally the County Commissioners are the final authority over everything that happens within the county. While this is quite true, it, and everything else having to do with state or local rights, haven’t been enforceable since General Lee surrendered to the big government people at Appomattox Courthouse! You know who big government is, the bureaucrats who happily ignore the Constitution… and a Congress that lets ‘em get away with it. So, how about a way to handle things right at the top…

According to the census bureau, there are about 16 thousand people presently living in Idaho County. There are also a lot of folks in other areas objecting to the swap… If only half of us wrote a lot of letters and made a flood of phone calls to our congressmen, vehemently objecting to this entire land exchange, and trying very hard to calmly (and intelligently) state our case, I wonder if perhaps we’d finally get some attention from those in Washington that actually make the decisions. Remind them of their constitutional duties, tell them that you’re quite upset with this whole exchange deal… and… you might want to mention that there is an election coming up, and that you are a voter.

Al-Walaqi killing

A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.

-Author Unknown-

As could be expected, the recent killing of Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, and three of his associates has brought about a flood of protest on this side of the pond. The political left, libertarians, and of course the ACLU, are all weeping, wailing, and protesting that al-Awlaki, who just happened to be an American citizen born in New Mexico of Yemeni parents, was “executed” by the US government without benefit of legal “due process”. The Associated Press reported that in a serious blow to al-Qaida, U.S. forces killed two American citizens who played key roles in inspiring several attacks against U.S. targets, cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, and Samir Khan, who edited the Jihadi Internet magazine, were killed in the course of a U.S. airstrike on their convoy in Yemen. Al-Awlaki apparently was targeted in the killing, but Khan was a fortunate case of “collateral damage”. Presidential candidate Ron Paul joined the civil liberties parade in protest, saying; "No one likes these kind of people, but I also like the rule of law and I like our Constitution, that you don't just target people, assassinate them, someone who has not been charged and you have no proof of anything."

Well, Okay, I can understand the concern. We are after all, a nation under law, law that considers people to be innocent until proven guilty. With that, it often seems that nearly every week we see headlines about some person or other that was convicted of crimes involving murder and the death penalty, and incarcerated for often very long periods of time before they were suddenly proven innocent and finally released. So we can readily see that even the law does make mistakes. But Al-Awlaki is an entirely different situation. While he was born in the U.S., his family moved back to Yemen where his father was a government official when he was seven years old, which hardly makes him an American in any but name! Secondly, he received a radical Islamic education which imbued him with a deep hatred of everything non-Islamic. Finally, any American citizen who knowingly and willingly attacks the United States is guilty of high treason, which is punishable by death. In this case, Al-Awlaki most certainly did, repeatedly, urge Islamic jihad against American citizens (which included both the Ft. Hood shooting and the somewhat less than brilliant “Underwear bomber”). Ergo Sum, sentence carried out by means of a missile launched from a U.S. drone.

There is another aspect of this incident that does concern me greatly however, in that now our government can order the death of American citizens without benefit of a trial… or even proof that a crime has been committed! Remember not long back when the news came out that the government was spying on Americans? Apparently there is a secret panel with the authority to authorize internal spying by government agencies, in a witch hunt for supposed evildoers. This panel can authorize spying on anyone in the country from a bonafide terrorist, to a suspected drug dealer, to, I imagine, a political opponent! (Sort of a “Watergate done legally” I think.) Done by direction of the president, such spying is in direct violation of our constitutional rights. You might also remember that we were solemnly promised such spying would be limited to catching bad guys, and only used in very few cases at that. Shortly thereafter we found out that numerous federal agencies including the FBI, were spying on us wholesale! Now, Reuters News Agency reports that “American militants” like al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions. There is no public record of the operations or decisions, nor is there any law authorizing the panel, or anything laying out the ground rules by which it operates. The role of the president in the process is kept rather vague, probably in the interest of plausible deniability.

Two legal theories have been advanced concerning the legalities; that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the 9-11 attack, and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself. But US District Judge John Bates wrote "Can (the president) order the assassination of a US citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization?" With the Patriot act, government has the power to declare just about any dissenter a potential terrorist. And “anyone” could cover a lot of territory from tax protests, to members of an opposing political party, to actual members of Al-Qaeda! Anyone who disagrees with the fed’s could be labeled a potential terrorist and placed on the hit list! I’m certainly no legal expert or Constitutional scholar, but I have yet to see anywhere in the Constitution where this is allowed, something that Congress can’t seem to understand!

A short lesson from history here… Martin Niemoller was a German pastor and avowed anti-Communist who supported Hitler's rise to power. Later, with Hitler’s insistence on the supremacy of state over religion he became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. In 1937 he was confined in concentration camps until 1945. His crime was "not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement." He issued a public statement shortly the war that's quite well-known and often quoted.

“First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Certainly, Anwar Al-Awlaki, or Achmed the dead terrorist for that matter, should have been blown away, a long time ago, so I’ll offer my congratulations to the shooter for a good hit. But I am also very much afraid that this incident is setting a really bad precedent, as we’re granting the executive branch of our government the power to kill any U.S. citizen deemed a threat by our politicians, and that includes you, me, or the guy down the street… and that with no judicial oversight, or any of the rights guaranteed us by our Constitution. If we allow such gross misuse of power to continue, we are driving yet another nail in the coffin of our constitutional republic.