Scott Lurndal wrote:
Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
prisoners,
You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies
Torture is torture. Full Stop. Are the Geneva accords the only
document that describes how one human should treat another?
They are more-or-less the only ones we're obligated to follow
as a matter of international law.
How about as a matter of some abstract morality? So torture of
any non-american is ok?
Of course not. But people who visit violence *by intention* upon
innocent non-combatants, and do so while hiding in civilian clothing
are simply not entitled to any consideration. They are a cancer
upon civilization. War itself is bad enough and ought always to
be avoided whenever possible, but intentional war upon innocents
is horrific beyond comprehension. It's perpetrators have *no* rights.
Even our most revered documents say that all _men_ are created
equal, not all _americans_ are created equal.
Sorry Sparky, if you do not adhere to our social compacts you're not
My name is not Sparky. And I think you've misread the declaration
of independence if you believe that the the In/Unalienable Rights
are reserved to those who ascribe to the rest of the document.
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
You need to read more than the first paragraph of the DOI. Try the
larger body of Enlightenment political philosophy, the Constitution and
the surrounding debate like the Federalist papers. The quote you cite
above does indeed speak to all mankind. But the subsequent social
contract explicated eventually in the Constitution only grants
protections to *participants in the contract*. If I enter into an
agreement to mow your lawn for a stipulated price, are all your
neighbors (nonparticipants in that contract) entitled to free lawn care?
If individuals want the benefit of US (or any other) law, they must
agree to participate in that system. Foreign invaders do not do
so, thus they are not entitled to any such protections. i.e., They're
not paying for "lawn service".
entitled to their benefit. If the Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) (aka
Cowards Killing Children Intentionally) would like to make themselves
subservient to the social contract enumerated in our founding documents
then, by all means they should be protected by these same precepts.
Of course, during the time period of the documents, it's signers
were also considered to be terrorists and criminals by the British.
They were considered criminals - traitors actually - not "terrorist".
The term "terrorist" has a specific meaning - one who consciously
and purposely targets non-combatants to keep them in a state of
fear ("terror") is the approximate definition.
Until then, anyone who purposefully makes war on children and other
innocents should be removed from the face of the planet with extreme
prejudice. If you don't excise cancer early, you die from it.
Gee. Didn't GWB "make war on children and other innocents" in Iraq?
Certainly wasn't just soldiers that died.
You need to read whole sentences. Note the modifier "purposefully" in my
original comment. Yet, civilians die in wartime. But the issue is
whether they were intentionally targeted (by, say, Al Queda, Hamas,
Islamic Jihad ... you know, The Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm)) or whether
such death was incidental and unintentional (the whole rest of the
civilized world).
Your commentary is repugnant and assinine in light of the fact that a
whole lot of American kids are dead today because we are so desparately
trying to *avoid* civilian death. If the US, UK, et al weren't morally
leagues above the swine they are fighting, we'd just level the area and
make the problem moot. So before you vomit more half-baked ideas,
consider that a lot of brave kids died exactly in the pursuit of making
war as surgical as possible and thereby minimizing civilian casualties.
Your facile analogy re cancer is clearly meaningless, as terrorism
isn't cancer and has absolutely nothing in common with cancer from
cause to cure.
It is a metaphor (you can look up what that means when you have time).
Terror, like cancer, is self-replicating, and if not eliminated in its
early and developmental stages will lead to the death of the host
system.
if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
knife like their compatriots do. Foreign spies are not entitled
to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
Who defines whether or not someone is a Spy, or a "unlawful combatant"?
International Law - you know, that body of blather the Left
trots out regularly as being superior to US law.
So what part of International Law allowed for the invasion of
a soveriegn country?
Have a seat and I'll help you with elementary recent history.
International Law as explicated by *many repeated* resolutions
in the United Nations long before W came into power is what
gave this whole business legitimacy. He merely finally acted upon
what all the UN gasbags had been talking about for years.
Even *then* he gave Sadaam alternatives until the 11th hour.
How can you trust the person making that designation if the
designation appears to be by fiat?
A person engaging in combat, not wearing a uniform is a spy.
A spy? Really? Actually, I think the term is "unlawfull combatant".
A spy is something completely different from a legal perspective.
But it's not different from the perspective of this conversation:
What, if any, rights does such a non-uniformed person have in a
combat setting.
The same person targeting non-combatants intentionally is a terrorist.
Or a freedom fighter, depending on point of view. (the french
resistance blowing up railroad trains in France during WWII comes to mind).
And just what was on those railroad trains? Civilians or German
war materiale'?
This is not definition by fiat but by observation. Unless, of course,
Who made the observation, did they really see what they thought
they saw, and can you trust them?
you buy the deconstructionist literary nonsese of the past 50 years in
which case words mean nothing (and you can't argue with me any more).
c'est what? (bad pun).
We have a court system. Use it. And forget the national security
No, our court system if for *our* citizens and residents, not for
foreign invaders.
If an illegal alien commits a crime in the United States, they
go to court, are convicted, serve their time, then are deported.
What matters the scale of the crime?
Because there is a difference between an illegal (civil or criminal)
act by an individual and an armed attack upon a nation.
Ok. 3000 people lost their lives 9/11. 35,000 people will lose
their lives due to the Flu this winter. 50,000 will die
on the roadways just this year. Don't you think that the
9/11 incident has been blown all out of proportion?
So in your book we have to hit some much larger number before
we get serious about this threat? Get real. We got lucky on
9/11 - the number could easily have been 10x what it was. We could
have seen the seat of Federal government and/or our core military
leadership wiped out. These people are playing for keeps. Why is
it so hard for the American Left to pull its' head out of its' respective
butt and realize we have to be even more serious in our respone (and
we have been, thanks to W).
9/11 cannot happen again the same way. And it is not because
of the creation of the Homeland Security department, or the
TSA (both of which will most likely be seen to be mistakes in
the future), but rather fortifying cockpit doors.
If the money that has been spent to avenge those 3000 had instead
been spent on law enforcement, medical research and smarter
roadways, we'd save many more American lives than the TSA
will ever save.
You need to grow up and read a small amount of history. Small
threats become big threats. Screaming for more medical research
when very well funded and highly determined murders have made it
clear they are coming for us is rearranging the deck chairs on
the Titanic.
nonsense about someone's day in court. It is a convenient
excuse, but how can you trust the government to make that designation
without showing any evidence? All one needs to do to see
this type of questionable accusation at work is to look at the Padilla case.
I don't particularly trust the government. But they have an obligation
to thwart foreign invasion *by all necessary means*. One more time,
invaders are not citizens or even legal residents - they are not protected
by our laws, period.
How is an illegal from central america any different from an illegal
from the middle east when they commit murder in the United States, for
whatever purported reason?
Nobody is invading the United States. OBL has never stated his
intent to invade the US. Kill people yes, but many criminals
have stated a desire to kill people. Many more have followed
through. Those that have been caught, have been punished.
You've created a strawman.
And you are seriously kidding yourself. The Islamic threat has
been brewing for decades (for lots of reasons) and it is coming
to fruition now. The US has *already been invaded* you just keep
ignoring the smouldering piles of debris and the bags of body parts.
Just how bad would it have to be for you to actually take this threat
seriously? 100,000? 1 Million?
no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,
To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
You're a fine one to be calling names of anyone. The Right is an
Ass, the Left is an Ass, it's the moderates in the middle
that will save this country from both the left and the right.
No - the moderates will twiddle their thumbs and continue the long
tradition of mooching that the Left and Right instatiated long ago.
This is your "Republican Mantra" talking. Moderates have been
responsible for the bulk of the progress in the United States
for the last 200 years.
First of all, I am not a Republican (not even close). Second of
all, Moderates have done nothing more than keep the government
ticking along in neutral and preserving the status quo. "Progress"
(in medicine, science, engineering, etc.) has mostly come from at
the hand of the Big Eeeeeevvvvilll Corporations and the donations
of Evvvviiiill Rich People.
You do not "moderate" when someone is attacking you. You fight back
until they are dead and no longer a threat. No less a complete
socialist idiot than FDR understood this. Sadly, today's Left
"socialist idiot"? Reverting to Namecalling is a typical when
you can't argue facct.
FDR was a fool. His collectivist policies extended the duration
and depth of the depression and forever socialized the only nation
in history that had ever seriously preserved individual liberty
above government power. He initiated the beginning of the end
for personal liberty. When you see the Patriot Act being renewed
in a few months, thank FDR - he's the one that taught the American
public that you give up *everything* for the "good of the people"
and they learned that lesson far too well.
is utterly without a clue on the matter.
And neither does the Right, sadly, as evinced by your pen.
I am not remotely a rightwinger. I mostly pick on the Left because
they are currently most dangerous force in a country at war, but I have
plenty of critique for the bloated Right as well.
However, it is the right that is ****ing the country up right now.
Today's Right *inherited* a mess caused by lots of different things.
This is the interpretation of the Right. It can hardly be unbiased, nicht wahr?
The Left believes the current mess was created by the Right.
They are being forced to respond in the face of the negligence of
Clinton, the failed endgame of Bush 41, the moronic foreign policy
of Carter, etc. Don't blame todays administration for the mess
because they didn't remotely create it. In fact, one of the few
Please. The first president in American history to invade and
occupy a sovereign foreign country that wasn't at war with
the United States didn't create this mess?
Hmmm ... didn't FDR invade Germany. Last I looked they never directly
attacked the US previous to our declaration of war. You really must
get beyond your public school (aka madrassas) understanding of history
and read something else.
good things this administration has done is to respond vigrously
and without apology to the invasion currently underway around the
world. Had Carter, Bush 41, or Clinton done this a long time ago,
the problem would be more-or-less moot now.
The problem is moot anyway. It's simply been overblown by the
Republicans using it for political gain.
Where is OBL and when will he be brought to justice for the
crime of conspiracy to commit murder?
OBL is not first a criminal. He is (or was) the commander of an invading army.
Killing him would be morally just, and perhaps even satisfying, but
killing his army is more important. When we're done with that, then
we go about killing off other threats in the region until no significant
threat is left.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/