Courage is the complement of fear. A man who is fearless cannot be courageous. (He is also a fool.)
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love (Robert Heinlein)
1
This is great, and it's true. You never fight with a man who has nothing to lose, or associate too closely with him in combat. Take my word for it.
As silly as Norman Mailer has become, he once remarked that heroism consists of doing the thing you dread the most. For an agoraphobic, crossing the street is an act of heroism. He's right.
It's too bad that the Constitution prohibits Naturalized citizens from running for President. I wonder if we could make a one time exemption and draft Kim du Toit?
After reading his essay on compremise, part 1, it's clear to me that he is a person that could bring sanity back to the political discourse of the country.
Kim is a natural teacher of plain common sense pertaining to the human condition. Here's just a taste:
"Politics, as the old saying goes, is the art of the compromise, and it’s absolutely true, even though that compromise sometimes sticks in the craw.
Socialistic statism is horrible; so is unfettered capitalism. The first political system suppresses human nature; the second exacerbates it.
Somewhere between the two lies peace and prosperity."
As most of my readers know, I'm of the far right side of the abortion issue, I guess you could have termed me an "absolutist", in Kim's terms, yet I still have grave reservations about what the struggle over abortion is doing to our society.
Kim has proposed a compremise in principle on both sides of the issue that could end a great deal of the struggle. It's one that, as an absolutist, does stick in my craw, yet the acknowledgement of the realities involved make it a fair compremise for both sides.
Go read it all. I can hardly wait for Part 2.
Yesterday was the 11th anniversary of the blessed union between Mamamontezz and I....so how did I spend it? Why I went to the range with Alex; our friend from the People's Monarchy of Britain, OF COURSE!
And before all you readers of the feminine persuasion excoriate me, Mama had to work anyway, and I went with her full blessing....well, went to see Alex, anyway, the range time is another story
Here's Alex holding some much-desired toys....as he said, WHAT a COUNTRY!
And here he is right before killing the green invader from IhateUstan.....
And I think he did a pretty thourough job of it too! LOL That one head shot was my turn at the AR-15 varient he tried out.....The shop owner and I TOLD him not to rent it...sure enough, his little fling with it lit a fervent desire to own one of his very own....impossible for a poor college student....especially one here only on a limited student visa.
But at least it gave him yet another reason to want to emigrate! LOL
I was happy trying out a brand I've never seen before, a Para Ordance LDA, in my favorite .45ACP caliber.
And I found it to be a true pleasure to shoot. note the head shots...quick fire at roughly 20 feet. Not too bad, considering my lack of range time in the last two months and with an unfamiliar weapon.
Got some vid of our playtime too, but since I don't have a host that will let me download it, I guess it will have to remain locked in my files as a private pleasure.....
Mamamontezz was a little disconcerted about the amount of money I spent.....disconcerted, HELL, she was PISSED! I guess I'll have to find a way to appease her rage...any suggestions ladies? I would take HER to the range ASAP, a little shooting always calms her down.... but that would only add to the money woes....
At least if I suddenly disappear, you'll know the reason why.....
But you will have to compete with the range if you stay with that big lug. Just join him in the game, and it won't be a problem in any case...except when you outshoot his skinny butt LOL
Posted by: delftsman3 at June 27, 2005 03:10 AM (vooSr)
3
Gina, let's have some pics of him fondling and playing with his favorite toy then!!!
Continuing a theme from an earlier post....We now have lost some of our rights under the 1st Amendment and 5th Amendment...and now I read about forfeiture of "suspected" illegal gains cash by Federal Law Enforcement officials (DEA).....
So lets recap shall we? We are being restricted in political free speech sixty days before an election by McCain-Feingold; the SCOTUS has said that any government entitity can seize your property under Emminent Domain, if they believe that they can increase revenues to the government by doing so; and law enforcement can seize your money from your person as being SUSPECTED of being obtained by illegal means. No PROOF of illegality is required....just the fact that people don't normally carry large amounts of cash serves as prima facia evidence of illegality; and you have to sue and prove that it's not illegally obtained to recover your funds.
As I said in my earlier post, there is a monster on the loose...how long do we allow it to roam free before we do something to cage it?
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury" (WHAT would YOU call it when a law enforcement official can seize your assets on "a hunch" that your engaged in illegal activity?)
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.""For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies"
Hmmm seems that allowing Emminent Domain for the purpose of raising revenue to the State and restricting free political speech prior to an election is "enlarging it's boundries" and "introducing (the same) absolute rule".
There you have three "triggers" that were part of what made the FF's rebel reoccurring in our time by our own government.
As the FF's said: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Are we made of the same stuff as our Forefathers?
Do we have the courage to stand up and be counted in asserting our rights granted to us by God? Remember that our Constitution is predicated on that assumption, no matter WHAT the anti-religionists say.
We need to redouble, nay, treble, our efforts to reassert those rights within the framework of the law, and yet, prepare ourselves for the possibility that it may be too late for the system to be changed by anything less than an armed resistance.
We owe our Progenitors nothing less than to show the same courage and sacrifice that they did, to continue the brave experiment they handed down to us for safekeeping. That those that would contaminate that experiment come from within and not from an external source, makes it no less necessary to demonstrate the same courage and willingness to defend our rights and liberties. At the ballot box and in the public forum for the present, but also on the battlefield, should it come to that point.
1
Just who is it supporting Emminent Domain seizures? Every blog I come across, regardless of the political affiliation, absolutely hates the idea.
Posted by: Karlo at June 25, 2005 05:31 AM (r65rq)
2
The kinds of seizures now codified by SCOTUS have been going on for fifty years in this country.
Every major post-industrial city in the US is now a cement nightmare, with festering pathologies of all kinds, because of Urban Planning, Redevelopment Agencies and the habit of local government thugs of using State money to condemn this in order to have their relatives build that.
Here in the Northeast we have two generations of stinking, failed Redevelopment Projects in the process of being, once again, Redeveloped.
The lefty pricks on The Court and everywhere else are insulated from the worst effects of municipal tyrannies and thieves because they don't live in the areas in question. The poor and lower middle class are always the displaced or relocated pawns in the official criminal behavior of governments at all levels.
We'll learn how dedicated lefties are to property rights when they comprehend that this is also a victory for real estate developers. I don't expect a peep from them because lefties, as a rule, are a bunch of privileged swells who are also hypocrites where they aren't stupid.
Now I know why the French in 1789 just built scaffolds and gave up on their attempts to just move past the ruling classes.
Posted by: Rhod at June 25, 2005 11:32 AM (M7kiy)
3
It's reue that ED has been in use for years Rhod, but the difference is, with the new SCOTUS decision, they've made it open season for developers, and harder for homeowners to fight it.
Private property is even more of an illusion than it has been for the last hundred years. I hope that it might serve to wake some of the less indoctrinated moonbats up....though that may be overly optimistic.
Posted by: delftsman3 at June 25, 2005 01:40 PM (vooSr)
I think it is overly optimistic. The Left will ignore this chiefly because they have no consistent principles in the first place. That The Court decision is a union of a grubby State time servers with avaricious developers will mean nothing to them. I'd be surprised if the average lefty even understood what happened. Most of them are dolts.
All they need to do is see Kennedy and Bader Ginzburg (which should be Bader-Meinhof) in the majority to legitimize the power grab. The Left is also no friend to Private Property, or "private" in any sense of the word except where it applies to abortion and sodomy.
I'm hopeful to this extent. Liberalism/Leftism in America is at the end of its road. History is passing it by day by day, and there might be some chance years down the road to have this overturned.
A man standing in line at a check out counter of a
grocery store was very surprised when a very attractive woman
behind him said, "Hello!" Her face was beaming.
He gave her that "who are you look," and couldn't
remember ever having seen her before.
Then, noticing his look, she figured she had made mistake and apologized. "Look," she said "I'm really sorry but when I
first saw you, I thought you were the father of one of my children,"
and walked out of the store.
The guy was dumbfounded and thought to himself,
"What the hell is the world coming to? Here is an attractive woman who can't
keep track of who fathers her children! "
Then he got a little panicky. "I don't remember her," he thought but, MAYBE....during one of the wild parties he had been to when he was in college, perhaps he did father her child!
He ran from the store and caught her in the parking lot and asked, "Are you the girl I met at a party in college and then we got really drunk and had wild crazy sex on the pool table in front of everyone?"
"No", she said with a horrified look on her face.
Just the other day I was engaged in an IM disussion with one of my friends that was prompted by my post on why I hold the 2nd Amendment so dear, and my feelings that the time for a second American Revolution may just be closer than we would wish. My friend is of the staunch opinion that "working within the system" will forstall any such need for open rebellion; and he asked me a very cogent question: Just WHEN will we know that the time for taking up arms has come?; what will be the trigger to let us know that it is no longer possible to redress our complaints against government through the law, and go on to take up arms?
I told him that there probably wouldn't be just one major trigger, but a series of seemingly minor incursions on our individual liberties, to the point where it becomes obvious that our government no longer deserved to be in power; AND that the ballot box was no longer effective in effecting peaceful changes in the course of policies.
Our 2nd Amendment rights have been under fire for a great many years now, a battle that ebbs and flows, but one that has been leading ever closer to the loss of those rights.
The SCOTUS upholding the McCain-Feingold act has already curtailed our 1st Amendment rights of free political speech. The urging of the FCC to regulate the Blogosphere in regards to the M-F Act only furthur imperils that freedom of speech, although it's too early just yet to know to just what extent that curtailment shall be.
However, with the latest SCOTUS decision, I fear that a major trigger has been pulled, and the time has been drastically shortened to when an armed revolt just may need to occur. This decisions strikes deeply into our 5th Amendment rights
In case you don't realize the effect of that decision just yet; it is, simply put, that no longer are private property rights held to be inviolable.
Government at any level can now decide that YOUR property can be better utilyzed by another for the betterment of "the People" as a whole. Read that to mean that when government can get more money from someone else by transfering your property to them via "condemnation for public use," they are not completely free to do so.
Yes, there is the fiction of "just compensation" for the property involved. But think about it. If the developer in question would be willing to pay you fair market value for your property, there wouldn't be any need for the government to be involved at all, would there?
And regardless of price, If you don't wish to sell for any reason, WHY should the government have the power to force you off your land just because they can garner higher tax revenues from the petitioner for your property?
This isn't a minor little disagreement, this is the end of true private property rights for good and all, and the removal of one of the prime pillars of our liberty.
For all intents and purposes, the concept of private property ownership ended when government started assessing property taxes, but at least we could maintain the fiction that we still were the lords of our manors. The taxes weren't unduly burdonsome in the majority of cases, and after all, that money went toward the needed infrastructures to make our property more valuable, so there was some equity in the exchange. This decision will strip the wool from the eyes of many people that heretofor were content in the delusion that they were more than mere lessors of their property, and will lead to an ever growing awareness that there is a monster on the loose, and that monster is our own government.
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
~John Adams~
Lay in your supplies, weapons, and ammunition NOW.
1
June 23, 2005, marks the day we totally lost the 5th Amemdment in the interest of bigger government. All it will take now is the perceived notion that there is a revenue shortfall to further a Socialist cause and the government can take your property under Eminent Domain and sell it to anyone who will pay the higher tax rates that are inevitable. Remember that we must give up our personal freedom and liberty for the common good, public safety and above all for the children.
Posted by: Jack at June 24, 2005 03:58 PM (e/TMs)
2
Knowing when to mash that reset button is less important than knowing why.
An elderly man lay dying in his bed. In death's agony, he suddenly
smelled the aroma of his favourite sugar cookies wafting up the stairs.
He gathered enough strength to get out of bed. Leaning against the
wall, he slowly made his way out of the bedroom.
With even greater effort, he forced his bony fingers to grab the
handrail and he went down the stairs, one stumbling step at a time.
With laboured breath, he leaned against the doorframe, gazing into
the kitchen. Were it not for death's agony, he would have thought
himself already in heaven.
There, on the kitchen table, spread out in rows upon wax paper,
were literally hundreds of his favourite sugar cookies.
Was it heaven? Or, was it one final act of heroic love from his
devoted wife of 60 years, seeing to it that he left this world a happy man?
Mustering one great final effort, he lunged toward the table,
landing on his knees in a rumpled posture.
His parched lips were slightly parted. The wondrous taste of the
cookie was already in his mouth; seemingly bringing him back to life.
The aged and withered hand, driven by one last gritty effort, shakingly
made its way toward a cookie at the edge of the table, when it was
suddenly smacked with a spatula by his wife.
"Stay out of those," she said, "They're for the funeral!"
As Acidman says: WIMMIN!
Here's an update and expansion on my post about a Palistinian Misplaced Arab trying to martyr herself in an Israeli hospital, from a story at Arutz Sheva Here's the story. I link, YOU decide.
BAUER: MAJOR TV NETWORKS BOYCOTTED 'HOSPITAL BOMBER' STORY
Despite the distribution of a video of the Arab suicide bomber who
intended to blow up a hospital by the IDF, nearly all foreign news agencies
chose to boycott the story altogether.
An outraged former undersecretary to US President Ronald Reagan and
candidate for Republican Presidential nominee, Gary Bauer wrote a scathing
critique of the world media’s decision to avoid the story.
Excerpts from Bauer’s letter:
”If you don't get the Fox News Channel then you didn't see any of the
dramatic footage of the Israeli army's arrest yesterday of a 21-year old, female Palestinian homicide-bomber, strapped with 25 pounds of high-explosives, just moments before she was to commit mass-murder by detonating herself inside an Israeli hospital. No other television network featured the story.
”Utterly ignoring the extraordinary video of the homicide-bomber's
arrest, both the BBC and CNN focused extensively on how much ‘damage’
Israel's early morning arrest - for which there was no video - of 55 Fatah
and Islamic Jihad terrorists, described by CNN as ‘Palestinian
activists,’ would cause to today's scheduled ‘summit meeting’ between Israeli
Prime Minister Sharon and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
That only one network would air incredible footage of the seizure of a
ticking human-bomb, just moments before she tried to murder hospital
patients, means this story was not simply ignored by the mainstream media
- it was boycotted by the mainstream media. Since nearly every aspect
of this remarkable story contradicts everything the mainstream media has
been trying to tell us about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they
just opted for the easiest way to handle it - denying it ever happened.
[…]
Ignoring the story meant the networks didn't need to tell viewers that
yesterday's homicide-bomber was not dispatched by terrorists of Islamic
Jihad or Hamas, groups opposed to President Abbas, but was in fact
working for the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, which is controlled by the
political party Fatah, whose chairman is none other than President Abbas
himself!
Ignoring the story meant not having to reveal that the
would-be-murderer had been traveling regularly to Israel for years on a valid medical pass, which granted the woman free treatment for burns she received in a home cooking accident, and was thus ruthlessly exploited by depraved
terrorists whose shameless capacity to cynically manipulate goodness,
in their pursuit of murder and death, knows no bounds.
[…]
Ignoring the story meant not having to cover comments the
female-terrorist made in a rare army supervised press conference in which she
revealed what her mission was and who sent her. "I believe in death," she
said on Israeli TV. "All my life I have been preparing to be a martyr.
Mother, please forgive me for failing in [my] mission." Sentiments not
exactly consistent with the line long peddled by the liberal media, and
more recently even by the Bush administration, that Israel is the
obstacle to "peace."
Michelle Malkin delivers a much deserved smackdown on those that keep asking for Trials/Hearings for Gitmo detainees. They HAVE had a hearing... EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
Due to the supposed "non-existant" hearings, over 200 detainees have been released...and 12 of those released were picked up BACK ON THE BATTLEFIELD. How many are back, but not recaptured?!?
With all the contoversy over Guantanamo lately, I found This Poll interesting. AND also this post over at PowerLine. I would agree with John that if all the Democrats can come up with is a 37% support rate, when they have made an all-out push on this issue, they are indeed in trouble.
In the "You won't see this in the MSM" section, Douglas Wood, the Australian engineer that was rescued last week in a combined US/Iraqi "cordon sweep" apololgized to both President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard for his "statements made under duress". Mr. Wood had been held hostage for nearly seven weeks by members of the Iraqi Insurgency Islamofacist movement. During the course of that captivity, Mr. Wood had made a televised plea for coallition troops to withdraw from Iraq.
"I actually believe that I am proof positive that the current policy of training the Iraqi army ... works because it was Iraqis that got me out," he said."
"
I would tell Mr. Woods that we understood that he was under duress, and hold no fault with him for saying what he had to, to survive. The fact that his first act on arriving home was to make a public apology shows that he is a class act.
Too bad some of our own people in leadership positions don't have the same class.
2
Unlike Durbin, this guy doesn't even have to apologize in my book. The simple explanation of "I had to say that drek or the bastards were going to cut off my head, but I didn't mean a word of it" is plenty enough for me.
Posted by: Graumagus at June 23, 2005 05:34 AM (z53Wt)
3
I also appreciated that apology. The government couldn't answer the demands, because by doing so they would have put every Australian (and other foreigners) in Iraq in graver danger of kidnapping. The apology acknowledges that they acted rightly.
As an aside, Wood upset a lot of people in Australia by announcing just after that apology that he was probably going to head back to Iraq because 'the money is really good'. (Seriously, what is his life worth to him?!) His family (who were ready to hock their homes and lives to pay ransom for him) were less than impressed, as was the public in general. He has since changed his mind.
Posted by: chosha at June 26, 2005 06:41 PM (DsXU5)
During a good manners and etiquette class, the teacher says to her
students :
"If you were courting a well educated young girl from a prominent
family and during a dinner for two you needed to go to the toilet, what
would you say to her?"
Mike replies : "Wait a minute, I'm going for a p***."
The teacher says : "That would be very rude and improper on your
part."
Charlie replies: "I'm sorry I need to go to the toilet, I'll be back in a minute."
The teacher says : "That's much better but to mention the word ''toilet'' during a meal, is unpleasant."
And Billy says: "My dear, please excuse me for a moment. I have to
go shake hands with a personal friend, whom, I hope, to be able to
introduce to you after dinner. "
Little boy goes to his father and asks "Daddy, how was I born?" The
father answers: "Well, son, I guess one day you will need to find out anyway!
Your Mom and I first got together in a chat room on Yahoo. Then I set
up a date via e-mail with your Mom and we met at a cyber-cafe. We sneaked into a secluded room, where your mother agreed to a download from my hard drive.
As soon as I was ready to upload, we discovered that neither one of us
had used a firewall, and since it was too late to hit the delete button,
nine months later a blessed little Pop-Up appeared and said: You've Got
Male!"
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself.
~Mark Twain~
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
~G. Gordon Liddy~
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
~Ronald Reagan (1986)~
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
~Winston Churchill~
There is no distinctly native American criminal class...save Congress.
~Mark Twain~
Any pretense at making believe that the Palestinians Misplaced Arabs are a civilized people should be shattered by a story like this, in fact that pretense is belied by her own words:
"My dream was to be a martyr," she said, adding that she was recruited by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a violent offshoot of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement. "I believe in death."
1
Ok. An Arab female wants to kill herself to make a statement. The Left loves people like her because without them, they'd have to actually do something. So why would the left who are all about peace, love and happiness (when not protesting, burning flags, or destroying property) and life, support Palestinians who want to commit themselves to death? if the left wants everyone to get along, and live happily ever after then why in the heck are they supporting a culture of death and destruction?
Posted by: maggie kimura at June 21, 2005 02:02 AM (Y+qjr)
Um, 'cuz they're Lefties? All leftists are concerned with is destruction of the current order. That's all they've been about historically, and it's all they offer now.
The Left also sees history as a process pushed by social movements and liberation. Liberation philosophies are very insidious, because they see nothing but imprediments in a life process to nowhere. You never arrive anywhere in leftism, you just keep going and removing obstructions, restraints and self-denials along the way. Death is the utlimate liberation, and I'm serious about this.
The Left also isn't about peace and love, either. It's about comfort, and because most of them can afford comfort, the nasty process of liberation is left to others less fortunate. Those willing to pay a price. Most leftists are spectators to the processes they set in motion.
Posted by: Rhod at June 21, 2005 10:13 PM (6krEN)
5
The should go ahead and let her martyr herself, on a row-boat out at sea.
One of my reasons to be such a vehement supporter of the 2nd Amendment is that it puts the means of self protection into our hands. The GFW's say that "that is what we have police for", disregarding the fact that that personal protection really isn't in their jub description. In fact, they can't even protect themselves from the ragages of crime. When the head of the police department in our nations capitol can't be assurred that his official vehicle can remain untouched, just what hope do us lowly peons have?
Yeah....I want to depend on THESE guys when it's life or death in the next two minutes!
Back in the Campaign, Democrats were protesting that we couldn't queastion their patriotism, even though such allusions were never made against them.
Mark Steyn has a great post questioning Dick "the Turbin" Durbin on his patriotism, and makes a great case showing it's non-existance.
Paraphrased from the article:
As Sen. As Leahy implicitly acknowledges, Guantanamo is about "image" and "perception" -- about how others see America. Around the planet, folks naturally figure that, if only 100 people out of nearly 300 million get to be senators, the position must be a big deal. Hence, headlines in the Arab world like "U.S. Senator Stands By Nazi Remark." That's al-Jazeera, where the senator from al-Inois is now a big hero -- for slandering his own country, for confirming the lurid propaganda of his country's enemies. Yes, folks, American soldiers are Nazis and American prison camps are gulags: don't take our word for it, Senator Bigshot says so. This isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing; it's about senior Democrats who are so over-invested in their hatred of a passing administration that they've signed on to the nuttiest slurs of the lunatic fringe, and providing our enemies in a time of war with the juciest propaganda coup that they could have ever wished for.
I don't question the good Senator from Illinois's patriotism, he's already settled that question in my mind.
There is are words for such as "the Turbin" Quisling Or to be even more blunt, Traitor, come to mind...
1
There are some pretty shocking reports coming out regarding torture and the like (from a country that is supposed to be above that kind of behaviour/thinking). There have also been some very inappropriate photos taken by US soldiers treating prisoners like an attraction at some kind of sick theme park.
No, that doesn't make them Nazis.
However...
A person who calls to others' attentions the actions of their own government or military, when those actions are contrary to the stated ideals or standards of that nation is NOT a traitor. In some respects they are actually a patriot.
Posted by: chosha at June 26, 2005 07:06 PM (DsXU5)
2
I agree Chosa, that calling attention to not meeting the ideals of a society isn't being a traitor, BUT there is a CORRECT way to do it, and Durbin sure didn't do it that way.
He went far beyond calling attention to something that we shouldn't be doing. THAT is where the "traitor" part comes in.
Posted by: delftsman3 at June 26, 2005 10:27 PM (vooSr)
3
Actually I disagree, and I get the impression that you are so busy being outraged at him that you have not considered what he said objectively. (And at least read to the end of the comment before you reply.)
From the Washington Post:
"During a speech Tuesday, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat quoted from an FBI agent's report describing detainees at the Naval base in Guantanamo Bay as being chained to the floor without food or water in extreme temperatures.
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said."
In other words, the man is saying 'If I just read this out, you would assume I couldn't be talking about Americans. You think that Americans don't do this; that it is in fact what we fight against. You would surely assume I was reading from a report about nations we normally associate with having no concern for human life, like the Nazi, Pol Pot, etc.'
Isn't that true? Or would you have heard the report and thought, 'yeah that could as easily be US soldiers as any others...'??
Your post accused him of 'slandering his own country'. If the FBI report from which he was quoting is accurate, in what way did he slander his own country. If the FBI report is accurate, then he is perfectly justified in saying:
"This administration should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorizing torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure."
Because if that report is correct, that is exactly what they have done.
Posted by: chosha at June 26, 2005 11:02 PM (DsXU5)
4
By the way, an FBI report is hardly "the nuttiest slurs of the lunatic fringe". You said there is a "right way" to go about holding the government and its military to account for their actions - what would you have considered "the right way" to handle this situation? He read a disgusting report. Should he have denied the report? Hidden the report? Is it fair to say that he has "provided our enemies in a time of war with the juciest propaganda coup"? Hasn't the military at Guantanamo Bay actually done that?
Posted by: chosha at June 26, 2005 11:10 PM (DsXU5)
5
It's the comparision that's out of line. He had every right to read the report, and every right to call everybody's attention to the report. If anything it's his duty as an opposition senator. It's the Nazi cracks that were out of line, and it's those that he needs to pay for.
Posted by: phnxfire54 at June 27, 2005 01:06 AM (uTM33)
Just because it was an FBI report,doesn't make it true. There is no context to judge it's veracity. AND the context in which the supposed "atrocities" had been done.
Go to any prison in the US and I believe that you will find things that would be labeled "atrocities", and far worse than anything reported having been done at Gitmo.
And you have to remember just WHO we are dealing with at Gitmo, these aren't misunderstood Sunday school dropouts.
These people live in better conditions than most of our soldiers in the field, and FAR better than a great many of their compatriots in their places of origin.
We are SO brutal that they get released in better physical condition than they've probably been in their lives.... and the fact that over 200 HAVE been released proves the lie that "there is NO system of evaluation". 12 of those released were recaptured on the battlefield, seems the system might have been a little lax...
Posted by: delftsman3 at June 27, 2005 01:17 AM (vooSr)
7
"It's the Nazi cracks that were out of line, and it's those that he needs to pay for."
Actually, in context, those comparisons make sense. The report indicated that these prisoners were being treated in ways in which it is unacceptable to treat a human being.
But let's assume for a moment that the comparison IS totally out of line...aren't you still focussing on the lesser evil. Is a careless REMARK really more serious in your mind than the crimes he is describing.
And on that note, delftsman, there is no context to consider. Those actions are not acceptable in any context - at least not if you truly believe what the US claims to stand for. The fact that similar or worse may happen in a US prison is cause for shame, not justification. And your soldiers in the field are not chained to a floor without food and water. Trying to argue that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are living a better life for being there is ludicrous, and it only highlights your subjectivity.
You are right to say that it is important whether or not the report is accurate. However, apart from your deep desire for it to be untrue, have you any evidence to suggest that the report is false? Can you think offhand of any reason the FBI would seek to falsify a report to make it look like the US is ignoring the Geneva Convention? I'm open to evidence, and I'd be very happy to find that prisoners are not being tortured, but it's not the first report of this kind of unacceptable behaviour, and I haven't seen any reason to assume this one is false.
Posted by: chosha at June 27, 2005 10:38 AM (DsXU5)
8
Chosha,might I suggest that you go to Terrorist Media, register, and see what REAL torture and Nazi's look like?
Posted by: delftsman3 at June 27, 2005 12:13 PM (vooSr)
9
"I'm open to evidence, and I'd be very happy to find that prisoners are not being tortured.."
OK Chosa, Would you believe a Marine Lieutenant that was at Gitmo for over a year?
Let's see...an unnamed FBI agent vs a Marine Lt. that speaks on the record...WHO do I believe?...it's not like the FBI would ever "play politics" that would reflect badly on a President..at least not since "Deep Throat"...
"Trying to argue that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are living a better life for being there is ludicrous..."
Lets see...average weight gain among detainees is between 20 and 30 lbs...there are more medical staff than detainees...they have three square meals a day, exercize on a daily basis..access to their scripture, with prayer call five times a day...clean beds to sleep in..Yep, its a real Gulag, allright!
May I quote the Lt.?: "For starters, the food is good. ("To be honest with you," says Hegseth, "I think their food is better than what my guys got.") Detainees get top-notch medical care, along with dental care -- which some have never had before. Many detainees correspond with family members, and have access to soccer fields and other recreational facilities."
"My men and I once spent nine hours on a runway trying to get a detainee on a plane to take him home. He refused to get out of the van. He was being well-treated, and he knew what torture and maltreatment were like back home."
Hegseth puts it like this: "Critics ask, 'How are we to win if we are conducting ourselves this way?' I think the opposite: If we're conducting ourselves this way, it's evidence that our cause is just."
"Actually, in context, those comparisons make sense"
Amnesty International recently compared the U.S. Guantanamo prison to the Soviet Gulags under Stalin. Here are the facts that they used to draw their conclusion:
Number of Camps:
Gulag -- 476 separate camp complexes comprising thousands of individual camps.
Guantanamo -- five small camps on the U.S. military base in Cuba.
Reasons for Imprisonment:
Gulag -- hiding grain; owning too many cows; need for slave labor; being Jewish; being Finnish; being religious; being middle class; having had contact with foreigners; refusing to sleep with the head of Soviet counterintelligence; telling a joke about Stalin.
Guantanamo -- fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan; being suspected of links to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
Red Cross Visits:
Gulag -- none on record.
Guantanamo -- regular visits since January 2002.
Deaths as a Result of Poor Treatment:
Gulag -- multiple millions.
Guantanamo -- no reports of prisoner deaths.
Daily Diet:
Gulag -- meager portions of swill.
Guantanamo -- two hot religiously correct meals per day with constant supply of snacks.
Work Requirements:
Gulag -- forced labor.
Guantanamo -- none.
Medical Treatment:
Gulag -- none.
Guantanamo -- better than the 20 million report "uninsured" American citizens.
Torture Methods:
Gulag -- starvation, beatings, exposure to elements, slave labor.
Guantanamo -- humiliation, standing on the koran.
Get the picture?
Posted by: delftsman3 at June 27, 2005 01:16 PM (vooSr)
10
1. "Chosha,might I suggest that you go to Terrorist Media, register, and see what REAL torture and Nazi's look like?"
You can't justify torture but comparing it to worse torture. It's like justifying a rape by giving an example of a rape/murder and saying, 'at least he didn't kill her'.
Argue, by all means. But argue well.
2. (3 is positive! )"...an unnamed FBI agent vs a Marine Lt. that speaks on the record...WHO do I believe?...it's not like the FBI would ever "play politics" that would reflect badly on a President..at least not since "Deep Throat"..."
I'm not going to claim that the Lt is lying. I don't know that one way or the other. But I do know that he is a subjective source. Anyone even vaguely familiar with military culture should recognise that military personal lying to cover the military's ass is not remotely new or unusual, loyalty and obedience being the paramount virtues of the military. As for the FBI, you had to go back a long way to find an example of them having a reason to discredit a president. And in that case they were discrediting that president personally. A little different. Obviously I can't say definitively which is true, but I do think it's pretty easy to say which is more likely to have occurred. I wouldn't say he's lying about most of what he said. I just think it's fair to consider he may not be honest about torture methods that occur.
3. Now the Amnesty International report is a better, much more objective source. That I can take on board, and it does suggest lend more weight to the idea that the other report could be false. I'd much rather believe that was the case.
If, however, it ends up being accurate, you might want to note that would add 'starvation' and 'exposure to elements' to your list of torture methods, which both appear on the gulag list. (Therefore again backing up the reasons the senator used that comparison for the acts described in the report...as you've just pointed out from the AI report, they are gulag style practices.)
Posted by: chosha at June 28, 2005 11:15 PM (Zzc10)