by Lance Thompson

The BBC reported on 23 June that Tran Trong Duyet, the former commander of the North Vietnamese Hoa Lo military prison where John McCain spent five and a half years, now considers John McCain a friend and "would vote for him." Mr. Duyet disputes McCain’s account of his captivity, denying that prisoners were beaten, tortured or mistreated. Evidently, Mr. Duyet does not regard the prison’s nickname, "the Hanoi Hilton," as the least bit ironic.

Still, the endorsement of an old enemy is nothing new in politics. After one of the most bruising primary battles in recent presidential history, Hillary Clinton calls Barack Obama a friend, and tells of how proud she was to have competed against him for the nomination. She will work hard, she promises, to reunite the party and see Obama elected. Surely this is no greater turnaround than that of a former North Vietnamese officer endorsing a former American prisoner.

One could ascribe Mr. Duyet’s last-minute endorsement to selective memory or the propensity to idealize the events of one’s past. But we must also consider a more sinister motive, one that eventually tempts all who come in contact with a presidential contender–personal advancement.

It is no secret that McCain and Obama are compiling lists of potential cabinet officers and political appointees. Mr. Duyet, currently retired and keeping fit as an amateur ballroom dancer, must be thinking about a third act in his life–surely he still harbors goals and aspirations. With his military background, he could be angling for Secretary of Defense. As a former officer in a former Soviet client state, he would have knowledge of Communist tactics and technology–both of which are bound to be hot topics with a resurgent Russia and a restive Communist China on the new President’s agenda.

Likewise, the hot seat of the attorney general might be a target. Mr. Duyet’s familiarity with incarceration and--at least according to John McCain--interrogation would put him at the forefront of the controversial Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees. If the liberals on the Big Bench insist on giving terrorist prisoners every possible break, then we should have an attorney general equally insistent on the same. The breaks he gave to his prisoners were more physical in nature than legal, but Mr. Duyet would certainly be a worthwhile advocate against a judiciary that seems at least sympathetic to this country’s enemies.

But Mr. Duyet seems eminently suited for one particular position that would give him a forum to demonstrate his new-found friendship for John McCain and catapult him back into the public eye. The unimaginably challenging job of White House spokesman cries out for a man of Mr. Duyet’s credibility and conviction. This position requires a person who does not mind that his every statement is disbelieved, his every utterance is questioned, his every smile or facial tic assumed to be rehearsed. Mr. Duyet obviously has no trouble at all expressing the most preposterous and laughable ideas with an absolute faith that they will find acceptance from a gullible public.

Writing for the majority in Crockett v. Santa Anna, Chief Justice Joe Arpaio, one-time sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, said, "This case should never have come before the Court. Recent rulings have established that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to keep, bear, and use firearms to protect themselves, their families, their property, and the sovereignty of the United States." 

Reaction was swift from liberal critics and gun control advocates. Speaker of the House Chelsea Clinton responded so swiftly, in fact, that she issued her statement yesterday. "This is another egregious example of judicial activism, legislating from the bench, and inventing Constitutional rights out of whole cloth."

Conservatives and gun rights activists responded with equal fervor. Bruce Willis, who currently occupies the John Wayne Chair of Weapons Technology and Culture at the University of Idaho, pointed out, "For many years, advancement of the liberal agenda relied upon judicial activism, expanding on rights guaranteed in the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and some rights which had no Constitutional basis at all. Now that there is a strong conservative majority on the Court, that same judicial activism has been applied to the Second Amendment and gun rights have expanded exponentially."

The conservative shift on the Court began in July, 2018, at a mass abortion rights rally in New York’s Central Park. A freak electrical storm generated a powerful lightning strike which destroyed the speakers’ platform where liberal Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter were sitting. The resulting three vacancies gave President David Petraeus a unique opportunity to alter the political balance of the court. With a narrow majority in the Senate, Republicans quickly confirmed three new conservative justices.

In the last two years, following the liberal example of judicial activism set by previous appellate courts, the newly conservative Court has vastly expanded the scope of the Second Amendment. In the first such case, the Supreme Court ruled that Herbert Taylor, an ice cream shop owner, had the right to order out of his store at gunpoint the unruly, abusive and threatening "posse" of hip hop star Rapp Dogg.  Petraeus-appointed Justice Laura Ingraham wrote for the majority, "Obviously, the Founding Fathers would not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms without inferring the right to use arms, particularly for self defense. What other possible purpose would there be? Therefore, the right to responsibly use a gun is clearly implied and understood."

This case was followed by Tucson Wildlife Club vs. Medellin Cartel, in which several gila monster hunters in Arizona were fired upon by armed Mexican drug smugglers making a cross-border delivery. The hunters returned fire, wounding several smugglers, and were convicted on firearms charges in a trial that was carried live on the Spanish language La Raza TV, which dominates the ratings in Los Angeles. The conviction was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court when Justice Ted Nugent wrote for the majority, "The Second Amendment says that a well-regulated militia is necessary to a free state. A militia is an armed citizen force used to repel invaders, which is just what these hunters were doing. Their acts fall well within the penumbras and emanations of the Second Amendment."

Thus, there was ample precedent when Crockett vs. Santa Anna came before the Court this year, but critics remain unconvinced.. Scott McClellan, vice president in charge of parking lots and picnics for Texans for Gun Abolition, a statewide organization whose membership has increased to over a dozen members this year, said in an unprepared statement, "We believe the Second Amendment was flawed by a typographic error, and the pertinent passage was supposed to read, ‘the right of the People to keep and bear farms shall not be infringed..’" Thus far, there has been little support for this position.