A Must Listen

[Thomas Linton]

First, name-calling does little to advance one's argument.

Next, if someone wants to kill all the lawyers, you'll have to kill me first, and I will not simply object. This ain't the UK. I get to shoot back, and have the means.

In the past, we always tried to take the high ground. There is no doubt that agents in our security forces would always do what was necessary.]

Thats exactly right. We, like every other nation, do what is deemed necessary, regardless of the "rules." Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton -- all massively violated the Constitution and/or (I get to say "and/or" 'cause I'm a lawyer. So there.) "international law."

Let's take Saint FDR for example. He ordered 100,000's of citizens to be put in concentration camps without any due process at all. They lost all their property, and we didn't give it back after the war. We didn't even apologize for 45-odd years (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Ronnie, Bush I -- plenty to go around). Then there were the 100,000's of civilians deliberately murdered in Japan, Germany, and Austria in violation of every priniciple of international law --- deliberate terror-bombing of residential areas of large cities. (We did it by day. the UK did it my night. The result was the same. Deliberate slaughter of civilians.)

"We," the U.S., join the other powers in such behavior, from Rome to the present. It's a very rough game, war is, even when "democracies" are involved. But they all say they are on the side of the angels: "Gott mit uns."

The difference is that we are now claiming to fight for democracy, yet proclaim that torture is OK, we don't need trials, etc.

No. We deny we are commiting torture, and the vast majority of U.S. citizens don't give a damn if we are. You "know" we are? What first-hand knowledge do you have? None, right? But you believe your sources 'cause they are who they are.

Yes. We do say they don't need trials 'cause, as noted above, nations do not afford trials to enemies during war when you have taken them prisoner -- except for "war crimes." You typically hold them until the war is over -- if they were in uniform and not fighting after hostilities were officially ended -- otherwise, BANG! But there is the complication that we initially said these "enemy combatants" were not coveed by the Geneva Convention, but now say they are. ("They," of course, follow no rules at all.) The Geneva Convetion does not give them a right to a lawyer and a trial in a U.S. court.

But we can not tell the world that we are fighting for democracy, and then follow the methods of tyrants.

We -- the United States -- supported and dealt with tyrants for generations when it suited our interests, from the Barbary Pirates to whole collections of modern tyrants. And, as noted, our leaders routinely ignored the law in wartime, were called tyrants, and responded, in effect, "And so?".

That is not good policy and makes no sense. You can't win the hearts and minds of the bulk of the people in the world by "talking democracy" and then openly talking about our doing evil being OK. This sort of mixed message makes no sense. Thus, we are fighting for democracy for someone else, but ignore democratic ideals for Americans.
I'd like my democracy at home.

IMO a strawman argument, in part. Our government does not say "evil [is] OK," we deny that we are deliberately doing evil. Your argument assumes matters not in evidence or in dispute.

I presume you refer to a witches' brew of Gitmo and the Patriot Act. But check this out: Congress passed the Patriot Act. It IS democracy at work (and FAR milder than what went on in WW I and WW II). Just 'cause we don't like what Congress does doesn't make it "undemocratic."

And I have no idea if we can win the "hearts and minds" -- which is what scared me about this war from the first. And by the way, "they" - the "Arab street" -- seem to have little interest in democracy, routinely supporting measures we (and the "West") find VERY undemocratic, like no rights for women and death for non-Muslim missionaries. Note the reaction to cartoons: kill native Christains and Westerners. All very chancy that anything like "democracy" will take there.

And bway, if you don't think some are "happy" about bad news, why do I have to watch the BBC (hardly friends of Bush) to get the good news about Iraq? I respectfully submit that it's because some have an agenda best served by unending bad news. I'm not sure if it's politics as usual or just media frustration that they do not decide who gets elected in this country (After all, they are so much wiser than the stupid voters 25-30% who bother to vote.)

As to whether the "liberals" (whoever they are) are happy about disaster and the power it can potentially bring, I think they are human, which is bad enough.

That does not, of course, mean they are wrong. It just makes them a biased source and special pleaders, like the Rushies and Fox. So I have to watch BBC, where they hate Bush but are professionals. (You know, there are actually casualties among the terrorists?)

 

[munk]

Next, if someone wants to kill all the lawyers, you'll have to kill me first>>>>> Thomas Linton


Thomas, Why do you get to be first? Is that fair? I thought democracies are supposed to be fair.



munk

 

[kronckew]

I don't quite get the lamb and lion thing. I don't see what it has to do with treating people according to national and international law.

the lions are the ravening beasts outside the nice secure touchy feely peace and love, everybody equal and law abiding world. the sheep are those inhabiting that worldly paradise blindly grazing around being directed by those who know whats best for them secure in the knowledge that they are special and the world owes them a living. the lambs are the most ignorant of the sheep as they have not yet seen the lions and refuse to believe in them, after all everybody just wants to be loved, even lions, if they existed. after all, lions will obey sheeple laws, won't they? some of the sheeple who have seen the lions eating their relatives have become marginally awake and have hired guard dogs to protect the flock.

the laws you mention were set up to keep the lions from eating the sheeple and the lambs. they work fine as long as everyone is a sheep or a lamb. not so good when not.

the lions are not obeying the laws, the guard dogs are doing their best to keep the lions away, but the lambs just want to be sheep and graze without having to consider the fact that they are just a protien source for the lions. you can be a lion, or you can be a guard dog, or you can be a sheeple. if you don't want to protect your family, get the flock out of the way and let the guard dogs do their job without all this constant harrasment and second guessing. when its all over, you can fire all the guard dogs and let them starve like you do after every war.

 

[munk]

Imagine a video game, well, a computer/xbox role playing game. And instead of choosing a character, like the Paladin, and fighting evil until you win, you choose a character, the US, and in every decision you made someone was going to get hurt that didn't deserve it.




munk

 

[kronckew]

First, name-calling does little to advance one's argument.

Next, if someone wants to kill all the lawyers, you'll have to kill me first, and I will not simply object. This ain't the UK. I get to shoot back, and have the means.

i am sorry if i insulted anyone by implying they were a liberal or a lawyer. i am sure that there are some good and altruistic ones out there somewhere and that if there are, they will probably be hanging around the cantina here.

of course, if by some lucky chance being a lawyer was made a capital offense, and they refused to recant and get a real job, resistng arrest and shooting back would be illegal and no law-abiding lawyer would break the law. anyway, being written in lawyer-speak, probably nobody but another lawyer would understand the new anti-lawyer statute & i imagine it would get watered down in the enabling legislation, so you have nothing to worry about.

or

someone advanced an arguement here a couple of threads ago on how to disarm the populace which could likely be applied to a gaggle of lawyers. i'm sure some lawyers would volunteer to push the necessary legislation thru if the fees were high enough.

anyway, as arny schwartzenperson said in one of his movies, "i like you sonny, so i'll kill you last." (he lied)

 

[Thomas Linton]

i am sorry if i insulted anyone by implying they were a liberal or a lawyer.

"Sorry"? Some of us need to make an effort to insult people here. I am humble in the face of your effortless skill. But then, everyone is usually good at something.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Next, if someone wants to kill all the lawyers, you'll have to kill me first>>>>> Thomas Linton


Thomas, Why do you get to be first? Is that fair? I thought democracies are supposed to be fair.

munk

Good point. Start with my neighbor four houses down. He was JAG for ten years after fifteen years in the Army -- eight as Special Forces. He has a B license and some swell automatics. He's about as tired as I am with this crap about "all lawyers," and doubtless a better shot off-hand (although I kick his butt with a scoped rifle).

No one said majority rule had to be fair. The elected leaders of democracies largely started WW I and kept it going. Even Adolf was elected in the first instance. Churchill just said it was better than all the alternatives. Data still being collected.

 

[bwray]

Bwray-
I don't accept that what you call Bush's failures, are failures. This thing is upon us and was going to happen- it did happen on 9-11 and is continueing. Some things aren't fixable, in the traditional sense. They must be bourn and lived through. munk

Hi munk. Just got back from dinner with my wife and lordy this thread is getting hot. Anyway, I agree completely with your point above. You and I are both within our rights and within the bounds of constructive behavior to disagree about whether or not some of the outcomes of Bush's policies are "failures". However, if one of us tells the other their position is unworthy of consideration because they are just "happy" when things seem to go wrong for Bush, then there is no longer any basis for discussion. This is the dismissive approach taken by Limbaugh and Hannity (I do watch - know your opposition). It is a tactic for avoiding serious discourse. Sort of like the preacher who has written a note in the margin of his bible that says,"... arguement weak here ... yell like hell."

You'd do better to think of my view regarding the NYT's as not from Rush Limbaugh, (who I've not heard in nearly 8 years) but from the standpoint of recognizing they represent a certain amount of the status quo. That I had to address their not very secret political goal does not bestow upon me the opposite political view- ie Republicans. (or that those responsible for decisions that did not go very well aren't still responsible for them, which of course they are)

You are the expert on your own positions, and it would be dismissive of me to suggest that you are not what you represent yourself to be. I have always had respect for your authenticity. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[kronckew]

"Sorry"? Some of us need to make an effort to insult people here. I am humble in the face of your effortless skill. But then, everyone is usually good at something.

thank you. you are obviously a gentleman and a scholar and not your average run of the mill torter. i will agree to no longer voice my opinion about the removal of all lawyers. even if some of them deserve it. i am consciously attempting not to insult any individual. i think insulting a group that in many cases outrage common sense is fair game on occasion. as in most short statements, you gotta hit harder than you like in order to get the point across sometimes.

i will, however post this link in mitigation and hopes for a reduced sentance: True Stella Awards , the greater majority of the cases referenced were represented by a lawyer or two whose fees on victory i am sure were not small. the burden in increased taxes, and prices on the end user, us, the increase in doctors malpractice insurance and the vast burden on the forests and rag-mills to produce the extra paper cost each of us thousands of bucks every year. the remaining cases where the litigant went ahead acting on their own brings out the madness behind the old saw about he who represents himself....

their frivolous actions also result in such practices as that which yvsa ran across on friday, where his doctor was paranoid about avoiding the possibility of litigation to the detriment of his patient.

in your other post i see the reference to your JAG friend, he also is of the good hardwood veneer over the soft inner core, JAG's, like NCO's, in general work for a living.

(addendum: the webpage linked to above is in the form of a legal document, so the most important bit is in the links in the fine print at the bottom where the current and some past cases are available)

i would also like to frivolously enter the following into evidence:

DISORDER IN THE COURT

These are actual quotes, word for word from court records:

Q: What is the date of birth?
A: July fifteenth.
Q: What year?
A: Every year.

Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
A: Gucci sweats and Reebocs.

Q: This myasthenia gravis - does it affect you memory at all?
A: Yes.
Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
A: I forget.
Q: You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you've
forgotten?

Q: All your responses must be oral, ok? What school did you go to?
A: Oral.

Q: How old is your son - the one living with you?
A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
Q: How long has he lived with you?
A: Forty-five years.

Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke that
morning?
A: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
Q: And why did that upset you?
A: My name is Susan.

Q: Did you blow your horn or anything?
A: After the accident?
Q: Before the accident.
A: Sure, I played for ten years. I even went to school for it.


The following are taken from actual trial transcripts as reported in the
Massachusetts Bar Assoc. Lawyers Journal:

Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.
Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
A: The autopsy started around 8:30 pm.
Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the
autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
A: It is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.


Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he
doesn't know about it until the next morning?

Q: The youngest son, the twenty-year old, how old is he?

Q: Were you present when your picture was taken?

Q: Was it you or your brother who was killed in the war?

Q: Did he kill you?

Q: How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?

Q: You were there until the time you left, is that true?

Q: How many times have you committed suicide?

Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?

Q: So the date of conception was August 8th?
A: Yes.
Q: And what were you doing at that time?

Q: She had three children, right?
A: Yes.
Q: How many were boys?
A: None.
Q: Were there any girls?

Q: Mr. Slatery, you went on a rather elaborate honeymoon, didn't you?
A: I went to Europe, sir.
Q: And you took your new wife?

Q: How was your first marriage terminated?
A: By death.
Q: And by whose death was it terminated?

Q: Can you describe the individual?
A: He was about medium height and had a beard.
Q: Was this a male, or a female?

Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice
which I sent to your attorney?
A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

and as a final word, real skill in insults requires a chief petty officer or a marine gunnery sgt., us poor amateurs and even the professional juris consults amoungst us pale in comparison.

 

[hollowdweller]

All I have left to say is if I want to sell a bridge to somebody I know where to look for buyers. Just as long as I have a republican sell it

28 posts! Glad I started this thread!

 

[kronckew]

and i would like to end by saying that no lawyers were hurt during the publication of this monumental epic.

 

[hollowdweller]

and i would like to end by saying that no lawyers were hurt during the publication of this monumental epic.

Ha!

My state has one of the lowest income and lowest rate of college graduates staying in the state- except lawyers. Lawyers are the only group that mostly can find jobs in the state!:thumbup: I got the wrong 2 degrees!

I was in a gunshop and he and the owner were discussing politics. The one guy was going on about killing all the lawyers and all this stuff that people like to say. Then as the conversation shifted and I continued to listen he went into his DUI arrest and how his lawyer had got it totally removed and how great it was. He didn't even make the connection in his mind to what he previously said.

Speaking of this sort paradox it reminds me of this article by Reagans Treasury Secretary

Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush

By Paul Craig Roberts

01/29/06 "ICH" -- -- Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses. Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information.

Much of the problem is the media itself, which serves as a disinformation agency for the Bush administration. Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio are the worst, but with propagandistic outlets setting the standard for truth and patriotism, all of the media is affected to some degree.

Despite the media's failure, about half the population has managed to discern that the US invasion of Iraq has not made them safer and that the Bush administration's assault on civil liberties is not a necessary component of the war on terror. The problem, thus, lies with the absence of due diligence on the part of the other half of the population.

Consider the New York Times/CBS poll. Sixty-four percent of the respondents have concerns about losing civil liberties as a result of anti-terrorism measures put in place by President Bush. Yet, 53
percent approve of spying without obtaining court warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."

Why does any American think that spying without a warrant has any more effect in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Bush is disobeying, requires the executive to obtain from a secret panel of federal judges a warrant for spying on Americans. The purpose of the law is to prevent a president from spying for partisan political reasons. The law permits the president to spy first (for 72 hours) and then come to the court for permission. As the court meets in secret, spying without a warrant is no more effective in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant.

Instead of explaining this basic truth, the media has played along with the Bush administration and formulated the question as a trade-off between civil liberties and protection from terrorists. This formulation is false and nonsensical. Why does the media enable the Bush administration to escape accountability for illegal behavior by putting false and misleading choices before the people?

The LA Times/Bloomberg poll has equally striking anomalies. Only 43 percent said they approved of Bush's performance as president. But a majority believe Bush's policies have made the US more secure.

It is extraordinary that anyone would think Americans are safer as a result of Bush invading two Muslim countries and constantly threatening two more with military attack. The invasions and threats have caused a dramatic swing in Muslim sentiment away from the US.
Prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq, a large majority of Muslims had a favorable opinion of America. Now only about 5 percent do.

A number of US commanders in Iraq and many Middle East experts have told the American public that the three year-old war in Iraq is serving both to recruit and to train terrorists for al Qaeda, which has grown many times its former size. Moreover, the US military has concluded that al Qaeda has succeeded in having its members elected to the new Iraqi government.

We have seen similar developments both in Egypt and in Pakistan. In the recent Egyptian elections, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, despite being suppressed by the Egyptian government, won a large number of seats. In Pakistan elements friendly or neutral toward al Qaeda control about half of the government. In Iraq, Bush's invasion has replaced secular Sunnis with Islamist Shia allied with Iran.

And now with the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian election, we see the total failure of Bush's Middle Eastern policy. Bush has succeeded in displacing secular moderates from Middle Eastern governments and replacing them with Islamic extremists. It boggles the mind that this disastrous result makes Americans feel safer!

What does it say for democracy that half of the American population is unable to draw a rational conclusion from unambiguous facts?

Americans share this disability with the Bush administration.
According to news reports, the Bush administration is stunned by the election victory of the radical Islamist Hamas Party, which swept the US-financed Fatah Party from office. Why is the Bush administration astonished?

The Bush administration is astonished because it stupidly believes that hundreds of millions of Muslims should be grateful that the US has interfered in their internal affairs for 60 years, setting up colonies and puppet rulers to suppress their aspirations and to achieve, instead, purposes of the US government.

Americans need desperately to understand that 95 percent of all Muslim terrorists in the world were created in the past three years by Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Americans need desperately to comprehend that if Bush attacks Iran and Syria, as he intends, terrorism will explode, and American civil liberties will disappear into a thirty year war that will bankrupt the United States.

The total lack of rationality and competence in the White House and the inability of half of the US population to acquire and understand information are far larger threats to Americans than terrorism.

America has become a rogue nation, flying blind, guided only by ignorance and hubris. A terrible catastrophe awaits.Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

 

[arty]

I am not a lawyer - but I sure like to have them around.
When I got a speeding ticket, I liked having the best that money could buy.
Lawyers have done fine work for me....
They don't come cheap, but neither does our government!

 

[Thomas Linton]

I got the wrong 2 degrees!

Wait! I thought three were required.

I was in a gunshop

I won't tell Hillary or Teddy or Chuckie or our Chairman (Ooooha!).

01/29/06 "ICH" -- -- Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses.

That would be NSA's warrentless "spying" on communications -- that has been going on since 1997? Will you not Google "Echelon"? Don't steal the credit away from our party. As for "impeachable" - demagoguery. Heard it before. In 1964 election, for one example.

Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information.

Don' it make you glad that way less than half of them vote? And wouldn't you be happier to just let such "superior" folks tell us what to have to think. Gee, I feel better already.

Much of the problem is the media itself, which serves as a disinformation agency for the Bush administration.

Some does, FOX et al. Other media acts as a propaganda arm of the DNC: CBS, NBS, ABS, MSNBS, SNNBS. NYT, LAT. etc.

Where does it say that the media gets to filter the facts to suit their political leanings or hunger to be "king-maker"? Oh that's right, the Constitution.

If CBS, NBS, and ABS are "affected," it's only because selling soap is the final arbiter - more important than who runs the country.

Despite the media's failure, about half the population has managed to discern that the US invasion of Iraq has not made them safer. . . .

Iraq as a failure of policy is the almost constant theme of much of the media -often is so many words. If the "main-stream" media has "failed," it's not for want of trying. For example, they almost never mention any success in combat or otherwise - only the U.S., Iragi government, and civilian casualties. You have to go to the BBC to find out about success -- or talk to the men and women coming back (who do not recognize the war they see on NBS et al.).

I would say "constant" without modification by "almost" but they have to leave time and space for the drumbeat of stories on every other real or imagined -- or hoped-for -- failure of "Bush." ("President Clinton" "Bush" Not an accident.)

. . .Bush administration's assault on civil liberties is not a necessary component of the war on terror.

Like the talk of "impeachable offenses," this characterization makes it impossible to view anything this guy says without caution. When you portray a position supported by competent attorneys, constitutional scholars, and the majority of the public and Congress is such dire terms, you are not one even attempting objectivity. You are engaged in a rant. Just like the Brady bunch, one must first demonize (the "Gun Lobby killing our kids!") before one can destroy.

Civil liberties do less well in War. But recall that the civl liberty in question, the "right of privacy" was unknown to the first 150 years of our national history. When the goverment, as it did under FDR, starts rounding up 100,000's of our citizens, it will be too late. But concerns are overblown. The Clinton/Bush spying is not all that big a deal.

Why does any American think that spying without a warrant has any more effect in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant?

Getting warrants is inconsistent with automated spying that started in 1997.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Bush is disobeying . . .

As in any rant, the argument assumes its own validity and goes on from there. Reminds me of Phyllis Schlafley; "LBJ so loves the Reds . . . ." (Hard to recall that in 1964, LBJ was portaryed by the extreme right as "soft on Communism" and a "peacenik.")

The purpose of the law is to prevent a president from spying for partisan political reasons.

Wrong. The purpose of any law requiring judicial oversight is primarily to protect civil rights -- to protect us FROM the government, not the democrats from the republicans or visa-versa. Not EVERYTHING is about which party holds power, but this ranter does not see that. To him,. it's ONLY about power and how to get it.

(And by the way, the "president" does not 'spy." I know he's the Devil, but he has other imps, and computers, to do the spying.)

Instead of explaining this basic truth [It's not true.], the media has played along with the Bush administration Only some of the media.] and formulated the question as a trade-off between civil liberties and protection from terrorists. [It is, as explained.] This formulation is false and nonsensical. [No, it's not.] Why does the media enable the Bush administration to escape accountability for illegal behavior by putting false and misleading choices before the people? [It does not.]

It is extraordinary that anyone would thinkAmericans are safer as the result of invading two Muslim countries [What! He's even off his nut about Afghanistan?] and constantly threatening two more with military attack[Syria and Iran? I got a novel idea, what about going back to Congress declaring war?] The invasions and threats have caused a dramatic swing in Muslim sentiment away from the US. [They loved us as they murdered us in 1993, 1994, 1999, 2001? Didn't I see dancing in the "Arab street" on 9/11? Yes, I did. Just before, "The Jews did it." Guess he didn't.] Prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq [That would the the U.S. and allies' invasion of Iraq. with the express approval of Congress and in compliance with the Clinton-era Congressional resolution for "regime change."], a large majority of Muslims had a favorable opinion of America. Now only about 5 percent do.[ I have heard this repeatedly -- with no reputable source. Liberal myth, I suspect.]

A number of US commanders in Iraq and many Middle East experts have told the American public that the three year-old war in Iraq is serving both to recruit and to train terrorists for al Qaeda [and kill them there], which has grown many times its former size [Al Queda, as an organization, has largely ceased to exist with the deaths of so many of its leaders and seizures of so much of its funds --- replaced by a more dangerous brew of autonomous local groups.] Moreover, the US military has concluded that al Qaeda has succeeded in having its members elected to the new Iraqi government. [Ain't democracy a bitch sometimes?]

We have seen similar developments both in Egypt and in Pakistan [over the last thirty years. The Muslem Brotherhood killed it's first Egyptian PM years and years ago -- Bush's fault, no doubt. ] In the recent Egyptian elections, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, despite being suppressed by the Egyptian government, won a large number of seats [and always would have over the last thirty years. Democracy again. Elitists don't really like democracy. Too mant "dumb" voters, dang it!] In Pakistan elements friendly or neutral toward al Qaeda control about half of the government [Probably false and unverifiable in any event, but it sure sounds "good." Tell you what, "Martians control about half the Huntington City Council." There. Parity of "logic."]. In Iraq, Bush's invasion has replaced secular Sunnis with Islamist Shia allied with Iran. [They say not. They are ethnically different, altough Shia. The head Shia cleric has effectively supported democracy, not theocracy, including inclusion of provisions for women's rights. But our ranter knows better - it has to be all lies to fit the rant.]

And now with the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian election, we see the total failure of Bush's Middle Eastern policy. [Ain't our country. Truman didn't "lose" China, Carter didn't lose Iran, and Bush didn't lose power for a party, Fatah, legendary for its corruption and inability to get the water to run.] Bush has succeeded in displacing secular moderates from Middle Eastern governments and replacing them with Islamic extremists. [BS that boggles the mind, but that's what most demagogues turn out.] It boggles the mind that this disastrous result makes Americans feel safer! [And, of course, it does not make us feel safer, but strawman arguments are part-and-parcel of demagoguery.

"unable to draw a rational conclusion from unambiguous facts?[Time to restrict power to the "best people, I say!]

Americans share this disability with the Bush administration.[Yup.]

"The Bush administration" [within ten words of]stupidly"
[The Clinton administration within ten words of . . . . .]

Americans need desperately to understand that 95 percent of all Muslim terrorists in the world were created in the past three years by Bush's invasion of Iraq.[And other fairy stories. The Muslim world's principal beef with us, according to them, (But they are doudtless inferior types too - not a Harvard grad in a thousand.) is our responsibility for Israel.]

Americans need desperately to [vote for people like me!!!] . . .

f Bush attacks Iran and Syria, as he intends[And he KNOWs this is true, right, being a superior person and all -- direct pipeline to received wisdom.], terrorism will explode, and American civil liberties will disappear into a thirty year war that will bankrupt the United States. [I think 28.7 is more like it, but I lack this guy's obvious superiority to see that Congress will go along with another invasion. Send the Dayton PD this time. ]

 

[hollowdweller]

Up to Post # 35!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

My burning question at this point is after we've got this many posts, HAS ANYONE WHO HAS POSTED ACTUALLY LISTENED TO THE BROADCAST IN THE ORIGINAL POST??

 

[Thomas Linton]

The Shia in Iran self-identify as "Persian" and Iranian The Shai in Iraq self-identify as "Arab" and Iraqi. I am sure that the Shia in Iraq would accept help from their co-religionists in Iran. That reality does not support the conclusion that the Arab, Iraqi Shia are ready to follow the direction of the Persian, Shia theocracy in Iran, and they have not done so by word or deed - thus far, to be sure.

Then we have Kurds thirsting for a national homeland - or at least Kurdish autonomy of some sort - for 100's of years.

And there is, of course, the Sunni Arab minority -- that didn't want to give up its rule of the 80% non-"Sunni" in Iraq.

Anyone notice that the Kurds and the Sunnis have allied to control the Parliament? Want to guess about whether the Kurds are Shia or Sunni?

We face -- the world faces -- a complex reality that I am confident was not fully known, anticipated, or appreciated by our government when it decided to invade.

But reality is seldom simple -- except to demagogues -- or whatever stripe.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Up to Post # 35!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

My burning question at this point is after we've got this many posts, HAS ANYONE WHO HAS POSTED ACTUALLY LISTENED TO THE BROADCAST IN THE ORIGINAL POST??

OK yadda, yadda, yadda. Life is tough. Stuff happens. Sorry, I can't forget the piles of actually, permanently dead bodies. They block my view -- in the piles of rubble, in the streets, being dug up from mass graves in the tan-colored dirt by the 10,000's.

Sure, if I were their lawyer, I'd fight like hell and make every legitimate argument, but 'd remember that the case is supposed to be argued in the courts, not the media. (Another rule that is not enforced. And National Progessive Radio is part of the media, with its own political point-of-view and its own "soap" to sell. Small donation?)

It's a legal issue. The courts have regularly ruled for the Government on such issues -- except, notably, when the SC ruled against Lincoln and he ignored the order.

IIRC, Habius Corpus has never been applied to captured foreign combatents.
The only real legal debate in the courts has been over U.S. citizens or residents, who are typically afforded access to the regular court system. That's what the writ does - assert the right of the court to have the person named brough before it to determine if he/she is properly detained. (I wonder if anyone tried to help the American citizens put in concentration camps in WW II? I'll have to check.)

Again, wouldn't it be nice if Congress was willing to take up its Constitutional responsbility and itself decide if we unambiguously went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq? It would help the courts sort it out. "War"? Sorta "War"? Like a "War"?

But wait! That would make it harder to avoid responsibility, as in "I voted for it before I voted against it."

Nah. Let's leave it the way it is and hope no one recalls how the votes went in 1997 or post 9/11.

Or we could say we supported war, but they didn't do it very well - we were ignorant about the strengh of the armed forces we are supposed to over see.

Woops. Forget the "ignorant" part.

"Misled." That's the ticket!

Wait, doesn't sound good we were misled.

"Lied to"! :thumbup: Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaho!