YES it matters because there is some question about his underlying motives.
NO it doesn't because he is behind Hillary 30% in dem polls and there is no way in hell he will get the nomination.
We have a situation where Obama used to wear an American flag pin on his lapel and it was noticed this week that he no longer sports the symbol of patriotism. When asked about this he spewed out some drivel about how he wanted his patriotism to be shown by his actions and not a pin. On the face of this statement it might be considered a reasonable explanation, but upon little more than just cursory evaluation then this statement is sad. I will get to that in a moment.
It does matter because of what his underlying motives might be. Obama has been consistently against the war in Iraq, which doesn't make you a traitor or strip you of patriotism. We all have a right to our opinion, and Obama is making a run for the Presidency. He certainly must be called upon to dfend his. The interesting point about this and why it might matter is because of the FoxNews Opinions Dynamics poll that surfaced this week. In this poll, 19% of democrats polled said that it would be inthe world's best interest if the U.S. lost the war in Iraq. The SAME week, Obama is noticed not wearing his pin. Is that coincidence, or has Obama calculated that he might get more support if he didn't outwardly support America?
19% is a large number. 1 out of every 5. That portion of the dem party are wackos - real extreme, left wing, communist type democrats. They are the Michael Moore wing of the party who would prefer a Che Guevera revolution in America.
Back to his statement. It makes a little sense, and actions speak louder than words. I have a problem with this statement because if you critique it just a little, it is silly.
Actions speak louder than words, to be sure. Obama is an elected person who gets airtime. He is a presidential candidate who gets airtime every day on every news broadcast. His statements can be evaluated for their patriotism and for their validity. But to me who is a middle class American citizen who goes to work and is involved in cub scouts and helps coach my son's baseball team and all of the other things I do, I don't get airtime. No one knows anything about my patriotism unless you either know me, or see my American flag pin on my lapel. When you see the pin on my lapel you see someone who is outwardly and actively communicating a love for America. You see someone who WANTS others to know how he feels.
I don't get airtime to communicate my ideas, and only about 535 people have 24/7 access to the media. For the rest of us, that flag pin is important. It shows what takes only a few seconds to determine, and that is Obama outwardly showing patriotism. The big question here is that he used to wear it, and then stopped.
It doesn't really matter because he is so far behind Clinton that he should probably start posturing for the '12 elections. Thee is no way that he can catch her, and I see him falling further and further behind. One speech at the Democrat National Convention does not a President make.
Waffling on your patriotism over something as small as a metal pin can stop a Presidency, though.
You Are Among The Elite!
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Barak Obama And The Flag Pin - Does It Really Matter?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
101 Posts From Readers:
This is just another way that Libs are pandering to their lefty voters who hate America.
As President , the office holder stands for something and that something IS the United States. When he is seen anywhere regardless of here or abroad peole see this country.
If a candidate can't where the flag on his lapel to represent this country then he has NO right BEING THE representaive FOR the country!
If a candidate can't where the flag on his lapel to represent this country then he has NO right BEING THE representaive FOR the country!
Well how the hell did this guy get to be "...THE representaive FOR the country!"?:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-5/1009798/ReaganNoPin.jpg
Shaw must actuall be my 15 year old incognito.
Random comments made just to hear himself talk.
No one said that to be the President, one MUST wear an American flag pin. Obama started wearing one, and then stopped. He made some silly excuse, which coincides with a poll about democrats.
Dear Robert,
This is what the New York Post (a Rupert Murdock newspaper) wrote:
The Illinois senator said he took to wearing the pin after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but stopped as the United States began its march to war in Iraq.
The march to war began in 2002--five years ago.
And I got this from Fox's website:
Asked about it Wednesday in an interview with KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Illinois senator said he stopped wearing the pin shortly after the attacks and instead hoped to show his patriotism by explaining his ideas to citizens.
"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299439,00.html
Google Obama+stop wearing pin and find all the hits showing your post is wrong. Wrong.
In your post:
The interesting point about this and why it might matter is because of the FoxNews Opinions Dynamics poll that surfaced this week. In this poll, 19% of democrats polled said that it would be inthe world's best interest if the U.S. lost the war in Iraq. The SAME week, Obama is noticed not wearing his pin. Is that coincidence, or has Obama calculated that he might get more support if he didn't outwardly support America?
You're confused, Robert. Someone NOTICED Obama wasn't wearing a pin the same week the poll came out. True.
But the FACT is that he STOPPED WEARING THE PIN AFTER THE ATTACKS NOT AFTER A POLL ABOUT DEMOCRATS WAS REPORTED.
Unless you believe Faux News misreported it.
Your whole premise is built on misinformation.
Nice try.
It concerns me that a man that wishes to be the President of the United States thinks a United States flag pin is a symbol for supporting the Iraq war.
It concerns me that a man that wishes to be the President of the United States doesn't wish to wear a United States Flag pin proudly.
Obama's statements about this continue to become convoluted and nonsensical - a different answer in every interview. It is clear to me that he isn't quite sure when he stopped giving a damn about it, but used the question as an opportunity to bash the war and the President.
An interesting question would be - why did he wear it in the first place?
I noticed that everybody, not just Obama (including the President, by the way...) started to wear Flag pins. I noticed it right away, but did not lay deep attention to its meaning. America always waves the colors after major tragedies,... it is (shamefully for us) the only time that it transcends politics and makes us all one nation, indivisible (You can add, "under God" if you wish).
On the same vein of topic, I have always wondered why the Republicans are more prominent flag-wavers than Democrats,... except for the older generation of Americans who are Democrats (Blessed are they), ... they are politically agnostic when it comes to having the red, white and blue flying in their front lawn.
What is it about the sudden aversion to flying the colors? what is it about the implied "if you fly the flag you support the war, or the troops...."? I remember as a kid pledging allegiance to the flag (even saying the God word in there)... everybody did it,.. blacks, latinos..... every teacher, regardless of ideology stood in front and did it. We can argue all day on the merits (or stupidity) of such a pledge..... I happen to think some symbols are worth defending and acknowledging... no matter the day, hour or policy-awakening moment. The flag should be one of those symbols, for any country, not just mother America.
As to Obama,... he is but another politician,.. a professional one at that. We as a society should just assume that everythign they do is contrived and formulated to fit the needs of vote-math calculation.. nothing more. Why does this surprise anybody is beyond me...., but its good that you bring up the moments it happends,... otherwise we forget how prevalent it is in the world of politics.
Great post Robert...
There is no logical reason he should have taken it off. It's a symbol of our freedom, our unity, our country. Taking it off looks like he is ashamed of wearing it. Ashamed of our country. No matter what happens in the U.S. nothing should EVER stop you from being proud and supportive. (Yikes, there's that word again) LOL. For somebody trying to gain approval and popularity, taking a symbol of our country off your lapel is suicidal (not literally) I wouldn't want anyone to mistake my meaning. Not a smart move for someone trying to be president!
A majority of Americans do not wear flag jewelry in their lapels.
It is a cheap, phony attempt at patriotism.
It costs nothing to stick a piece of metal that is not the American flag in one's lapel and strut around as though you're making a sacrifice for your country.
Wearing a metallic piece of jewelry made in China does not make anyone a patriot.
How you defend the Constitution and live up to its ideals and promise is far more important than wearing some crass imitation of our flag in your suit coat.
Just because a small percentage of Americans say it's a symbol of our freedom does not make it so.
Millions and millions of Americans DO NOT WEAR CHEAP IMITATIONS OF OUR FLAG IN THEIR LAPELS.
Does that make them unAmerican?
“When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's little Red Book on every official's desk, omnipresent and unread.” --Bill Moyers
I did a bit of research on the net and found that the leading Republican candidates have had their official portraits taken WITHOUT THE FLAG LAPEL PIN.
(Including Ronald Reagan's official portrait, sans American flag lapel pin)
By your comments on this blog, they are suspect as American patriots.
John McCain:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-5/1009798/McCainnoflagpin.jpg
Fred Thompson:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-5/1009798/Frednopin31207.jpg
Sam Brownback:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-5/1009798/Sambrownbacknopin.gif
Rudy! Giuliani:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-5/1009798/Rudynopin.jpg
NOT ONE OF THEM HAS AN AMERICAN FLAG LAPEL PIN in their official photo.
And you guys question Obama?
Hypocrites of the first magnitude!
No surprise.
Oh, excuse me. I forgot Mitt Romney.
No flag lapel pin either:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-5/1009798/Romneynoflagpin.jpg
How do you account for all of these leading Republicans (including Ronald W. Reagan) not sporting their patriotic flag pins?
Please tell me how they are patriots and Obama is not?
Hypocrites.
It's the whole point that he took it off. If he hadn't been wearing it, then there will be no issue at all. People show their patriotism in different ways. But when you wear a pin and then all of a sudden take it off, you are doing it purposely. There is a reason behind it. Maybe not a smart one, but a reason none the less. Why a hypocrite? We are criticizing a move made bu a presidential canidate while trying to win the nomination. Don't you think that we should look closely at the canidates and their reasons for doing certain things. And his explanations just didn't fly with me.
It's the whole point that he took it off. If he hadn't been wearing it, then there will be no issue at all. People show their patriotism in different ways. But when you wear a pin and then all of a sudden take it off, you are doing it purposely. There is a reason behind it. Maybe not a smart one, but a reason none the less. Why a hypocrite? We are criticizing a move made bu a presidential canidate while trying to win the nomination. Don't you think that we should look closely at the canidates and their reasons for doing certain things. And his explanations just didn't fly with me.
Oops, sorry Robert. I pushed the comment button twice. Sorry!
Jenn,
Why don't you ask the Republican candidates the same question? Sometimes they wear the flag pin, sometimes they don't. Why?
And why should anyone care in the first place?
Wearing a flag pin does not make anyone a patriot.
Shaw, people do care. I care. I care that he 1) stopped wearing it when making a show of it in the begining and 2) can't really decide why he stopped wearing it.
Whenever I wear a suit or sportcoat (which for the last 5 years, until recently, was 6 days a week)I wear a pin with two flags crossed - The American flag and the Marine Corps flag.
I started wearing it years ago and there is no good reason to top wearing it unless it breaks or I just forget to switch it to a different jacket.
But if one of those things happen and someone asked, I would tell the truth.
Actions speak louder than words.
Hmmm. I think those words are very misunderstood as they are NOT always true. As a matter of fact, given the number of people we come into contact with each day vs. the number of people who actually know us intimately, those words are actually SELDOM TRUE. And unless one's "actions" are closely scrutinized, they most certainly are NOT true.
When our actions DO happen to speak louder than our words, no where in that proverb does it suggest that they should "replace" our words altogether. If you "talk" what you cannot or obviously do not "walk" then YES, your actions are likely to override and nullify any respect or admiration your speech might draw. However if your actions aren't supported by your speech, they too are drawn into question. "What's his angle?" "Why can't he say what he means?" "Who's he afraid of offending?" It cuts both ways.
If you are a patriot. You should practice it....and you should proclaim it. If you are running for President of the United States, you should proclaim it LOUDLY, (unless you are seeking the vote of the far left) as your "words" are likely to be what gets you elected. Our words and actions should match. We should talk the talk AND walk the walk. But if you're walking without talking....you're just another guy in the park. No one is likely to notice.
It's the same argument that Thomas and Shaw are pushing over at Jenn's about Christianity. They think that we should just "live" our faith but never "share" it, lest we encroach on the freedoms of another. However, if we were to only "live" and "practice" it but were never to "proclaim" it, our "faith" would surely die, as our membership and numbers would dwindle to nothing. Thomas doesn't care how I "live". He and his type don't watch me and say..."Hmmm...that's a good guy". "I wonder what he's got that I don't." "Lemme go ask." No...to them, our words speak loudly. Too loudly for their "comfort". God instructs us to seek to be Christ-like. But he also instructs us to "proclaim" Him, to shout it from the mountain tops, to spread his Gospel to all corners of the earth. Do you think he meant for us to do so only by the way we choose to live our lives?? Heck no! He wants us to use our words to back our actions.
It is typical of Liberals to do so but proverbs were never meant to be considered only at face value and out of context of the lesson in which they are taught.
The Republican candidates who've chosen on occasion not to wear their "flag pins" haven't been asked "Why?"
The point of this article seems not to be the fact that he chose not to wear it, it was his answer as to why. Had he said anything similar to the following I believe it would have diffused the question and diverted attention back to the issues he holds to be important: "I don't know, I just didn't pin it on. I'm staking my Presidential bid on my issues not a lapel pin. It's like choosing to wear a blue suit or a black suit, I just choose one because it really doesn't matter. Sometimes I'll wear it and sometimes I may not. I'd prefer you focus on what I have to say, not what I have to wear"
Shaw.only Barak Obada has made an ISSUE of NOT weering the flag.
BTW I never suggested in my first comment that he was chosen as the representative of the nation. I was stateing that if he cannot support the flag that represents that nation HOW CAN HE EVER represent the nation in which that flag is a symbol!
t.l.l.t.c.t.,
I don't know who Barak Obada is. Are you trying to be funny by making fun of the senator's name?
It's amazing how torn up the right is over whether or not a man wears a piece of jewelry in his lapel, but is silent on how Cheney, Bush, and Gonzales dishonored America and squandered any respect we held in the world by condoning torture and abuse at secret prisons and conductig a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people, and the world about those policies.
But it's much easier to rant about lapel pins than to think about what George Bush has done to America's global image and to our legal system.
And thanks to Bush's use of torture, it will add immeasurably to the risk facing any man or woman captured while wearing America's uniform or serving in its intellignce forces.
But Bush wears an American flag pin in his lapel! What a patriot!
American Forces have always faced torture and harsh treatment if captured. Of all of the countries we've battled in combat, only the Germans attempted to adhere to any sort of military respect and treatment of US POW's and even then, not always. Every other force we've fought either have not been parties to the Geneva Convention or, like today, do not fight under any nation or flag.
What kind of torture does the US use? What evidence do you have of "Torture"? Naked Iraqis with dogs barking in their faces or ugly female GI's pointing at their genitals? You call that torture? I have a very good friend who was a POW in Vietnam who would harshly disagree with you. I'll bet if Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, Kim Sun-il, and Paul Marshall Johnson (to name a few) could speak from beyond the grave, they would strongly condemn calling treatment received by the prisoners of the War on Terror "torture".
"Well how the hell did this guy get to be "...THE representaive [sic] FOR the country!"
Because he's a US Senator running for President of the United States, that's how.
(Funny, by the way, how you can make a huge deal of someone else misspelling "Obama" but you can't even spell "representative"...even with Google spell checking it for you.)
Wadical said...
"Well how the hell did this guy get to be "...THE representaive [sic] FOR the country!"
Because he's a US Senator running for President of the United States, that's how.
(Funny, by the way, how you can make a huge deal of someone else misspelling "Obama" but you can't even spell "representative"...even with Google spell checking it for you.)
The alleged poster of this comment had no idea that I was quoting "the liberal lie, the conservative truth" previous post.
But this alleged poster is so eager to catch me in some error, that it didn't bother to read carefully.
If the poster had any reading skills, it would have understood that the misspelling belonged to "the liberal lie, the conservative truth." I hope that t.l.l.t.c.t. takes note of the alleged poster's snark.
Meanwhile.
YAWN
Wadical said...
"Well how the hell did this guy get to be "...THE representaive [sic] FOR the country!"
Because he's a US Senator running for President of the United States, that's how.
(Funny, by the way, how you can make a huge deal of someone else misspelling "Obama" but you can't even spell "representative"...even with Google spell checking it for you.)
The alleged poster of this comment had no idea that I was quoting "the liberal lie, the conservative truth" previous post.
But this alleged poster is so eager to catch me in some error, that it didn't bother to read carefully.
If the poster had any reading skills, it would have understood that the misspelling belonged to "the liberal lie, the conservative truth." I hope that t.l.l.t.c.t. takes note of the alleged poster's snark.
Meanwhile.
YAWN
Posted twice to make sure the alleged mistaken poster W. reads it twice.
Choosing to not display the American Flag is personal and ultimately of no consequence. Choosing not to display the American Flag out of protest when you're a US Senator and United States Presidential Candidate is stupid and speaks volumes about your Patriotism.
Displaying the flag in any form, whether on a pole or on your lapel, doesn't mean you necessarily support all of the actions our country has undertaken. It merely displays your loyalty and patriotism. If he's not loyal to our nation, he doesn't belong in the US Senate, much less the White House. It's not his choice to forgo displaying the flag that is the issue here. It's his reason for making that choice that brings into question his honor and integrity.
If everyone put away their flags every time our government did something they disagree with, there would be no flags except over government buildings...ever. Because NO ONE agrees with everything their government does. It is not an appropriate way for a Presidential Candidate to protest.
"Alleged poster"
Haaaahaaahaa! You really are a juvenile!
..."I know you are but what am I?"
Hahahahahah! You're a friggin riot, man. I think your mom's calling you for dinner, Jr. Better go wash up!
BWAAAAA HAAAA HAAAA HAAAAA!!!!!!
You get em' Wadical. Sometime I think we are seriously on two different brain levels. Why do they think this whole issue is about a peice of jewelry, it's not. It's about what taking it off means. What he is saying by taking it off. There is so much more to this than just taking off a pin from his lapel.
You worry about what Senator Obama means by not wearing a pin.
I worry about what Bush means by condoning torture--the first time in the history of this country a president has sanctioned these methods in order to extract information from prisoners who were captured and held in secret.
The first time an American president has sullied our reputation before the world in such a disgraceful and unAmerican way. Shameful.
And you worry about the meaning of lapel pins.
Talk about arranging the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.
Again, as I wrote above:
What kind of torture does the US use? What evidence do you have of "Torture"? Naked Iraqis with dogs barking in their faces or ugly female GI's pointing at their genitals? You call that torture? I have a very good friend who was a POW in Vietnam who would harshly disagree with you. I'll bet if Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, Kim Sun-il, and Paul Marshall Johnson (to name a few) could speak from beyond the grave, they would strongly condemn calling treatment received by the prisoners of the War on Terror "torture".
Oh, I forgot. You're busy going...."la la la la la la, I'm not listening to Wadical. La la la la la....he is dead to me."
(chuckle)
It is simply a position given for nothing more than to have something to rebut with on this topic.
I have no idea what a flag pin and the questionable motivation for deliberately and intentionally not wearing it has to do with "torture" that rivals fraternity hazing in its severity.
That is an idea...instead of waerboarding, why don't we make them a beer funnel (or beer bong as it is called in other places) and get them sloppy drunk. Not only does it have the effect of talking too much, it has the added bonus of pissing them off.
First off, I think wearing a flag pin is tacky -- it cheapens our country.
However, I have to ask, is this what you are worrying about? Like, is this really that important, that Obama stopped wearing his flag pin?
Bush can suddenly completely cover himself in flag pins, it won't him less of a traitor to our country.
Geez. Way to blow something completely out of proportion and get distracted from the real issues. Did Rush talk about this or something?!
First off, I think wearing a flag pin is tacky -- it cheapens our country.
However, I have to ask, is this what you are worrying about? Like, is this really that important, that Obama stopped wearing his flag pin?
Bush can suddenly completely cover himself in flag pins, it won't him less of a traitor to our country.
Geez. Way to blow something completely out of proportion and get distracted from the real issues. Did Rush talk about this or something?!
SERE school was worse than anything those people had to endure. It sucked. It sucked bad. But we're still here, alive and better prepared for it. Bush ain't alone, pal. Bring it on! Sleep deprivation, stress positions, blindfolds, stripping. Loud noises. Pull out the stocks. The United States treatment of POW's under interrogation is likely not to cause death or great bodily harm and therefore, NOT TORTURE! So bring it on!
SERE school was worse than anything those people had to endure.
The SERE school is exactly where these stupid techniques came from. What was the SERE school? It prepared American soldiers for what they would endure in Soviet capture. At the time, the Soviet techniques were regarded as brutal, sadistic, inhumane and as torture. But now that we are using them, suddenly, they are no longer torture.
It sucked. It sucked bad. But we're still here, alive and better prepared for it. Bush ain't alone, pal. Bring it on! Sleep deprivation, stress positions, blindfolds, stripping. Loud noises. Pull out the stocks. The United States treatment of POW's under interrogation is likely not to cause death or great bodily harm and therefore, NOT TORTURE! So bring it on!
Is this what we're doing now, trying to weasel out of the definition of torture? Sensory deprivation, for example, causes massive hallucinations after only a couple of hours, and sometimes, the people don't fully come back from those hallucinations. Is that torture?
So bloodthirsty, so sadistic, and for what? Read about these World War II Interrogators:
Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.
"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.
...
"We did it with a certain amount of respect and justice," said John Gunther Dean, 81, who became a career Foreign Service officer and ambassador to Denmark.
The interrogators had standards that remain a source of pride and honor.
"During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."
Grrrr! Comcast is toying with me again, and I am not a happy camper!
I think Congratulations are in order. You've gotten your wish....moonbats! LOL
Anyway, I am not sure how you got from lapel pins to torture, but hey whatever.
One thing I noticed....is that they don't write on their blogs, but they bring it over to your place. I guess you seem hospitable! :-)
I am not sure how you got from lapel pins to torture, but hey whatever.
What's more offensive to our country, what's less patriotic, my dear, not wearing a lapel pin, or torturing people?
My dear, I didn't realize that Roberts post was dealing with torture. I must have missed that somewhere. I think if he wanted to debate on torture, he would have written a post on it. If you feel so strongly then you write a post on it.
I find it less patriotic to be concerned over the well being of a person who would prefer to eradicate our entire population than to be ocncerned about the well being and success of our warriors.
My dear, I didn't realize that Roberts post was dealing with torture. I must have missed that somewhere. I think if he wanted to debate on torture, he would have written a post on it. If you feel so strongly then you write a post on it.--conserv. chic
dora and I bring torture into the discussion to illustrate how silly it is to obsess over whether a politician wears a lapel pin while the president of the US is deliberately breaking the law and dishonoring our country.
You guys seem to worry about petty nonsense while assaults on the Constitution go unnoticed.
I find it less patriotic to be concerned over the well being of a person who would prefer to eradicate our entire population than to be ocncerned about the well being and success of our warriors.
Robert,
I believe you're an intelligent (if misguided) :-) man.
Many of the people being held in detenton in Gitmo and other places where they've been secretly renditioned and tortured haven't even been charged with a crime, have not been allowed to question their accusers, have not been able to see any of the evidence against them, and have not been allowed a lawyer, in other words, they've been detained (some since 2001) contrary to what the laws that govern this nation and what the international laws the US has signed onto demand.
These things seem not to disturb you. You diminish this disgrace by calling all those who are held in detention murderers. How do you implicitly know that? You don't.
And apparently, you find it perfectly fine for president of the US to break the law.
Except, of course, when a president lies about a BJ.
Remember, should Hilary Clinton be elected as the next president, you and the 30% of the voting population may by her whim, do the same to you, because she may deem you guys a threat to this country.
Remember, at this moment in our history, the president can designate anyone he so wishes an enemy combatant and hold him or her without any recourse to counsel. For as long as he so wishes.
Think about that power Hillary will inherit if she is the next president.
Ah Dora, Thank you for your lovely post about my poetry. You've just shown everyone your true character. I may not agree with everyone's opinion's but I respect them. (Shaw, Thomas) When you make fun of people you lose all credibility and respect. I guess you were never taught that. So sad for you! Maybe there is still hope for you yet. LOL Who am I kidding!!
Hey Robert, sorry for going off on your blog, but she had it coming after her post.
Jenn, I didn't post on your blog, I put it on mine. I don't really see why that should bother you.
Most importantly, my dear child, you don't respect everyone. You may think you're an adult because you have children, but you're not.
You don't respect everyone. For example, you say that you are pro-life. That means you don't respect women as human beings. You place the "life and rights" of a zygote over the life and rights of a fully-grown person, just because that person is a woman.
Also, if you'd just your pretty little head just a little bit, you'd see that it was Wadical who brought torture into this.
Shaw,
I appreciate you backing me up. I agree with everything you've said.
Jenn, fire away! But please know that Dora exists simply to pull chains, and the epitome of that is the above post about what it means if you are pro-life.
Equating the right to life with the right to not be bothered by a child that was concieved during a less than stable unmarried relationship or a one night stand that is barely remembered. Yet Dora chooses to position the equation as if you are demanding a choice between the life of the mother or the life of a child.
Shaw, I find that you are quite capable of being an intelligent person yourself, but you have to turn the switch on all the way.
I didn't say that everyone held at Gitmo was a murderer. I didn't reference Gitmo at all. I said that they would prefer to see the eradication of our entire population. As with all terror operations, some are the shooters, some are the supporters. If you support terrorism through the raising of money, then you should be viewed as if you pulled a trigger.
I have some issues, as a human, with these tactics. But I balance the greater good and the necessity of preservation. Sometimes it just comes down to a "Him or me" decision.
Finally, I will reiterate my position on the Clinton scandal for those who may be new here. I was against the investigation, I was against the hearings, I was against the enormous waste of time that surrounded the entire affair (no pun intended). I thought it childish and over the top for the GOP to engage in character assasination and detour from important issues. I was against a special prosecutor investigating the sex life of the President. Plain enough? I think that Clinton's behavior was unacceptable and that the perjury charge was appropriate. He lied under oath. HOWEVER, had the GOP not pursued the issue it would not have come down to that even happening.
Yet Dora chooses to position the equation as if you are demanding a choice between the life of the mother or the life of a child.
You prolifers like to gloss over pregnancy and birth. Perhaps you've had the chance to be intimately aquainted with the two? They are not a joke. Birth can really screw up someone's body, permanently. It's a big deal.
Jenn puts the mother's right to choose not to go through that, to control her own body, lower than the "rights" of a zygote or foetus.
Perhaps ovaries will have rights next? What astounds me most is that people like Jenn most likely are on the pill. Hypocrites.
I didn't say that everyone held at Gitmo was a murderer. I didn't reference Gitmo at all. I said that they would prefer to see the eradication of our entire population. As with all terror operations, some are the shooters, some are the supporters. If you support terrorism through the raising of money, then you should be viewed as if you pulled a trigger.
But if everyone in Gitmo is either a terrorist supporter or a terrorist, the "worst of the worst," then how come more than half of the people who have ever been detained in Gitmo have since been released? You can't have it both ways.
Not that I care to be informed of Jenn's choice of contraceptives, but let us say for a moment that she is indeed on the pill. How does that make her a hypocrite?
You assertion that it does simply reinforces the position - mine and others - that too many people use abortion as birth control. You seem to equate the prevention of pregnancy with terminating a viable one.
The mother had a right to choose when she chose to have sex without contraceptives.
I purposely avoid this topic because it is so pathetic that people actually find it acceptable to terminate life.
Not that I care to be informed of Jenn's choice of contraceptives, but let us say for a moment that she is indeed on the pill. How does that make her a hypocrite?
You assertion that it does simply reinforces the position - mine and others - that too many people use abortion as birth control. You seem to equate the prevention of pregnancy with terminating a viable one.
Do you know how the pill works? Not the morning-after pill, not RU-486. I'm talking about regular old birth control pills that so many women take every day.
The pill works by:
(1) preventing ovulation,
(2) thickening cervial mucous to delay/interfere with sperm entry through the cervix, and
(3) preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining.
Did you know that? That third way the pill works, it's after the sperm and the egg have fused, after so-called "conception" (which is not a medical term, "fertilization" is the correct medical term). It's the exact same way that the morning-after pill works -- preventing implantation of an already fertilized egg.
Now, if you life begins at fertilization (in medicine, pregnancy begins at implantation, not fertilization), then the pill is as bad as an abortion.
Now what?
As much as it pains me to pop your precious bubble dora, I am not on birth control pills. Not that it is any of your business, but when we had our boys and decided we didn't want any more he had a vasectomy. So my dear, you are quite WRONG!
So please with all your brilliant ponderings, tell me exactly how I am a hypocrite?
All right, then, Jenn.
But just out of curiosity, if you are against abortion and the morning after pill, shouldn't you also be campaigning against the birth control pill?
Jenn, I didn't post on your blog, I put it on mine. I don't really see why that should bother you.
Ummm, Hellllooooo? Anybody in there? I shouldn't have a problem with someone making fun of my poetry and comparing to a child's.
"Jenn puts the mother's right to choose not to go through that, to control her own body, lower than the of a zygote or foetus.
The mother has 2 choice that she has already made. One, to have sex, and two, to not use protection. And if she makes the wrong choices, there are consequences. And I love it when you call it a zygote. It makes it all too real, when you call it a baby!
Also, if you'd just your pretty little head just a little bit, you'd see that it was Wadical who brought torture into this.
LMAO - and you have the balls to criticize my writing. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Jenn, I didn't post on your blog, I put it on mine. I don't really see why that should bother you.
Ummm, Hellllooooo? Anybody in there? I shouldn't have a problem with someone making fun of my poetry and comparing to a child's.
I wasn't talking to you, little girl.
One, to have sex, and two, to not use protection.
Ah, but what about the cases where the protection fails? Even the birth control pill, even when used perfectly, has a failure rate. So even when you make the right choices, according to you, could end up unintentionally pregnant.
Now, why are you avoiding the question of your support for the birth control pill? why are you changing the subject? do you support making it illegal, because it prevents the implantation of fertilized eggs?
Sweetie, i almost feel a little bad for making fun of you, because you're so naive, young and defenseless. Really, it's like kicking a puppy.
Just go back to your blog, stop picking a fight with me. Go talk to your children or something, they won't make fun of your poetry. They'll look up to you as if you were the smartest person that ever lived.
I don't even know why I am even wasting my breath on you. You proved to me exactly the kind of person you are, and I frankly want to have nothing to do with you. So go find someone else to read your worthless chatter. :-)
Please, run. I wasn't even talking to you. Run back to your rainbows and lollipops.
And make sure to support making the pill illegal, okay? :)
"Jenn, I didn't post on your blog, I put it on mine. I don't really see why that should bother you."
You said my name, but you weren't talking to me. Yeah that makes sense!!
Go talk to your children or something, they won't make fun of your poetry.
You are right there. They are not the slightest bit rude or mean. You could learn quite a lesson from them.
"Please, run. I wasn't even talking to you."
Again, who were you talking to then??
"Run back to your rainbows and lollipops."
You know nothing about my life, nor the struggles that I have faced, so don't mess with me. When you have been through a quarter of what I've been through, then maybe, just maybe you have the right to say something about my character.
Lollipops and rainbows...you sure you haven't been smoking something? Maybe that would explain your useless and pathetic arguements.
I have to go now and spend some quality time with my children. You go back to, well, whatever it is you go to think up these intelligent and thought provoking posts. And honey, that was sarcasm, just in case it went over your head.
Jenn, take a deep breath and et that can of teflon. Someone is intentionally pulling your chain.
Some windmill tilting should be saved for the morrow.
LOL I'm calm now. Serenity now, Serenity now. Ya gotta love Seinfield!
Dora is a TROLL, Jen. That's all she is.
Leave it to a TROLL to steer a subject waaaaay off course. They can't argue the subject so they argue what they feel comfortable with....torture and abortion.
But they cannot argue even those subjects fact for fact, point for point.
You obviously have never been to SERE school, Dora. It's obvious because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. "Back then"? There is no "back then". SERE school is a very real place that still exists. It is in place for a very real reason. Students are subjected to harsh environmental situations but their health is never in danger. What you call "torture" is a pantywaist definition. If that treatment is safe enough for American Service personnel it is safe enough for terrorist suspects.
You don't have moonbats in your belfry, Robert. You've got TROLLS. Trolls ruin a meaningful debate for everyone. They're like children, squabblin' assed little children.
Well, the SERE school no longer trains against Soviet tactics, in fact, after a bunch of cadets sued the government for being sexually assaulted during the training, the program was scaled back to just survival and evasion. Right now, SERE is not training anyone to resist the techniques used at Gitmo.
Moreover, this line of logic doesn't work: "If that treatment is safe enough for American Service personnel it is safe enough for terrorist suspects."
If it's safe enough for American Service personnel, is it safe enough for regular old American civilian criminal suspects? Is it safe enough for terrorist suspects who are US citizens captured in the US? How about military personnel who are arrested for crimes on military bases?
"Well, the SERE school no longer trains against Soviet tactics, in fact, after a bunch of cadets sued the government for being sexually assaulted during the training, the program was scaled back to just survival and evasion. Right now, SERE is not training anyone to resist the techniques used at Gitmo."
Again I say. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! I've been there Dora. (Incidentally, there's more than one. Each service has it's own) I doubt you have. I know people who've been there recently! Survival and evasion only!!! OMG! You couldn't be more wrong. Doesn't train to resist the techniques used at Gitmo? What techniques are those, Dora? You a guard at Gitmo or something? You privy to some kind of classified information that is unavailable to the rest of the world? You're making this up as you go along. You tout your opinions as fact. I don't know how else to say it. You're wrong! Very wrong!
"If it's safe enough for American Service personnel, is it safe enough for regular old American civilian criminal suspects? Is it safe enough for terrorist suspects who are US citizens captured in the US? How about military personnel who are arrested for crimes on military bases?"
If I were king?? You damned right!
"If it's safe enough for American Service personnel, is it safe enough for regular old American civilian criminal suspects? Is it safe enough for terrorist suspects who are US citizens captured in the US? How about military personnel who are arrested for crimes on military bases?"
If I were king?? You damned right!
The question is not "if you were king." As you are well aware, those techniques are not considered appropriate for any of those categories of people. They're not even considered appropriate for POWs, or the prisoners in Abu Ghraib. That's why those people are charged (and some are convicted of crimes). So, your argument is stupid and wrong, in short.
You privy to some kind of classified information that is unavailable to the rest of the world?
Well, actually... no joke.
No, I've never been to SERE, and you're right, I didn't realize there were SEREs for each branch of the military. I was talking about the Air Force SERE. "As a result of the scandal, the SERE program at the Academy was reduced to the survival and evasion portions only, and called Combat Survival Training (CST). All graduates going on to aircrew positions were then required to attend the resistance portion of the training at Fairchild Air Force Base before reporting to an operational flying unit. The CST program was discontinued entirely in 2004. The Air Force Academy is currently preparing for the return of their SERE program in the summer of 2008."
"So, your argument is stupid and wrong, in short."
Well. Thank you for your "opinion". However, I've experienced them, almost all of them...personally. No, they are not pleasant, but neither are they dangerous or inhumane. My health or safety was never in danger. Neither are these prisoners.
I have a little more knowledge than you'd ever care to give me credit for on this particular subject. Aside from my own experience in the Military and Civilian Law Enforcement having given me a pretty solid understanding of interrogation methods I have 2 family members who are directly involved in the interrogation of terror suspects. One is in Iraq. One just returned from Guantanamo Bay. I had a lengthy discussion with one of these cousins this week at my Grandmother's funeral. If you could speak to them, they would both tell you, that what you "THINK" happens there is quite different from what actually "DOES" happen.
I was told that "countless"....not a few....COUNTLESS terror plots have been thwarted via the current interrogation techniques in place by the United States, who for your information (since you're obviously quite uninformed on this particular subject) has some of the most "humane" interrogation techniques of any nation. Go to China, Russia, the former Soviet satellite States, many Eastern European Nations, and EVERY Islamic Nation (just to name a few) and you'll find stark differences in just what "rights" are afforded to prisoners....especially prisoners of war or prisoners who are deemed to be enemies of the State. That means COUNTLESS lives were saved. We've gathered reams of valuable and confirmed intelligence from prisoners by having techniques available to us for interrogation other than simply asking them: "Hey, do you want to cooperate...No? OK. Here's a steak dinner, and your release forms". Many of these prisoners are damned fortunate that they were caught by the United States and not some of the alternatives, like Pakistan.
Stress positions are not inhumane. Exposure to temperature extremes is not inhumane. Neither is sleep deprivation for that matter. Waterboarding is rarely used and only on select subjects of interest whom the United States has confirmed through multiple other sources as having immediate knowledge of high value, time sensitive intelligence.
What is especially frustrating is reading the absolute decisiveness with which you are convinced that what we are doing is wrong and inhumane based on nothing more than what you hear or read about in the over sensationalized Main Stream Media.
It's sad, actually. I'm sure you consider yourself to be quite intelligent, yet your total reliance on nothing more than your precious MSM to keep you "informed" makes you nothing more than a sheep.
Say it with me, Dora: Baa aaa aa aaa aaa!!
The techniques are not safe or humane, that is why they are banned by the Geneva conventions for POWs.
Which part of "sensory deprivation causes massive halucations, from which many people never fully recover" don't you understand?
Do you think the "mental harm" part of the Geneva conventions is there just for kicks?
Just because Pakistan would treat them worse does not mean that we can treat them any way we want as long as it's an iota better than the way Pakistan treats them.
Conditioning medical care on cooperation with interrogators is not safe or humane, by definition, and, I am loath to say, reminiscent of the worst totalitarian regimes in history.
Very lastly, have you heard of Maher Arar? I'm pretty sure that being beaten with a frayed electric cable is not safe or humane. But, I'll concede, that didn't take place in Gitmo.
You know those traitor lawyers who work on behalf of the Gitmo detainees? I'm one of them. So, I know what goes on in Gitmo pretty well.
Ahhhhhhhh!!!!
The truth reveals itself!
A lawyer representing the torn and tattered, disrespected terrorist suspects. (or so you say!) Now it all makes sense!
"You know those traitor lawyers who work on behalf of the Gitmo detainees? I'm one of them. So, I know what goes on in Gitmo pretty well."
You know what your "detainee"/client tells you. Of course you're his lawyer, though...you don't have to run his statements through a "truth filter". You just run with what you hear.....straight to the bank. Oh, lemme guess...You're one of the starving, idealist lawyers right? It's all pro bono right? Yeah, right!
Which part of "sensory deprivation causes massive halucations, from which many people never fully recover" don't you understand?
All of it! I experienced it. I know a WHOLE BUNCH OF FOLKS who experienced it. It suffices to say that I know "many" people who've gone through it. NONE OF THEM HAVE ANY LASTING EFFECTS. If SERE school is inhumane than I'm Mickey Mouse! Much of what these folks are going through is no worse than what American GI's are put through in SERE. Hell, much of what you "lawyers" would have us believe is "torture" is no worse that what American GI's go through in BOOT CAMP!...sleep and sensory deprivation, stress positions, fear, physical punishment! Please!
I got no sympathy for some dude who's snatched off the streets of Baghdad with a "bang switch" in his hand who's sent to Guantanamo Bay Cuba and then after suffering no long term pysical affects from his "less than pleasant" treatment, cuddles up to some Ambulance Chaser....ahem...I'm sorry Human Rights Attorney who just can't wait to sue the US Govt.
Prison affects everyone permanently, lady! All forms of incarceration "affect" the incarcerated to some degree or another. WAR affects people permanently.....so do IED's but that doesn't matter, does it?....Only the rights of the man who planted the IED, right?
If you have knowledge that if revealed will save American lives, then I personally don't care if they pull it out of you with forceps! But if a detainee, after being sujected to this treatment (that will not cause death or permanent physical harm) coughs up intelligence that upon confirmation saves American lives....YOU WILL RUSH TO THE AID OF THIS SACK OF CRAP BECAUSE HE WAS FORCED TO REVEAL HIS PLOT TO KILL AMERICANS?
Yep. I think we know all we need to know about you.
"...sleep and sensory deprivation, stress positions, fear, physical punishment..."
Sleep deprivation. How about walking patrols in enemy territory and for 3 days surviving on catnaps? How about 2 hours of sleep a night for weeks on end? Kuwait, 1991. Vietnam, Korea, Iwo Jima,etc.
Stress positions? How about on top of a roof in Khafji while an entire Iraqi armored battalion is below you in the streets looking for you?
Fear...whatever. Boot camp for the Marines FORCES fear on you. People who can't swim are forces to swim..and you worry about a few minutes of waterboarding? People who are afraid of heights rapelling down a 100 ft tower?
Physical punishment? Humping (carrying) an 80 lb combat load for 100 miles in 4 days? Three drill instructors beating the crap out of you?
Combat stress was NOTHING compared to the stress of Boot camp and live fire CAX (combined arms exercise) at Desert Warfare Training. But that is the whole point, isn't it?
You just run with what you hear.....straight to the bank. Oh, lemme guess...You're one of the starving, idealist lawyers right? It's all pro bono right? Yeah, right!
LOL, you're joking, right? Yes, it's all pro bono. Who's going to pay, the detainee in Gitmo? What's he going to pay with? Or maybe his family in Pakistan? LOL. Or maybe you think we're working on taking a percentage of the damages we're suing the government for? No one is suing for damages. We're still litigiating issues like "does the detainee have a right to sue at all?"
You're so nuts.
As for the rest of your arguments about how all this stuff isn't really so bad, there is simply no debate. Whether or not you agree with this result, none of this stuff is allowed for US citizens or persons detained on US soil. None of this stuff is allowed on POWs. Period, the end. Whatever your machismo tells you to say, it's irrelevant.
Irrelevant? yet it makes perfect sense to everyone here but you. Strange, huh?
These prisoners aren't US Citizens. They aren't combatants under the flag of a soverign nation. They aren't in any army or state sanctioned armed force. As far as I'm concerned they don't have any rights afforded to US citizens, or Prisoners of War under protection of the Geneva Convention.
Pro bono. You're such a great gal. You and all your lawyer pals. Rushing to the aid of terrorists to ensure their rights aren't violated. Never mind the rights of the innocent civilians who are maimed or killed as a result of their actions. Lets just make sure that their stay in prison is a comfortable one.
Screw them.
Yes. It's irrelevant. That's just the way it is. I can't change it.
And please, don't change the subject.
You support torture, please come to terms with that.
I've admitted that many times, Dora. Actually wrote a post about it last year. I got nothing to come to terms with. My point is that I don't consider what the US is doing as "torture". But I wouldn't have any problem with doing whatever it takes to get your "client" to reveal whatever he knows, so long as it saves American lives and it is confirmed through other sources that he actually has intelligence to give. But don't worry. I'm not in charge.
Here's a question, Wadical: is there anything that could be done to suspected terrorists that you wouldn't be okay with?
Anything? Here are some suggestions to get the mind going:
- threatening to bury him or her alive
- threatening his or her spouse or children
- actually injuring his or spouse or children
- threatening to, or actually, injecting him or her with harmful chemicals, like plutonium
- castrating him
- raping him or her
- branding him or her
- pulling out finger and/or toe nails
- cutting off his or her fingers
would that all be okay with you? any of it would not? anything you can think of that wouldn't be okay with you?
Would the plutonium make for glow in the dark targets? Shooting through a nightscope is pretty cool. I haven't ever seen where the target itself would glow.
I am not much for raping male terrorists, but that is just my preference.
can't bring yourself to answer the question?
He hasn't been on today, Dora
You're right, i mixed you guys up. Well, what about you, Robert? Where do you draw the line on waht is okay to do to suspected terrorists in the name of saving american lives?
First, I think it important that we draw a distinction between Soviet defectors in the 1980s, and radical terrorists today. For the former, polite treatment and finesse worked quite well. For the later, it is important to remember that the psyche is one where they believe it an advancement not only of their cause but of their soul to die in Martyrdom. A healthy dose of Prime rib and Chardonnay would have no benefit.
I draw the line pretty far, Dora. I don't think chopping off fingers or rape is appropriate, nor do I think it is being done. Sleep deprivation, fear, waterboarding, extreme temperature moderations, etc is fine by me. It is hardly torture in the same as bamboo shoots under the fingernails, or being kept in a 2 x 2 x 2 hotbox in the Arizona desert. These things that do not bring the immediate threat of death to save American lives are fine by me.
I personally see more value in dropping them at a thousand yards with a Barrett than keeping them prisoners.
If the intelligence they harbor is worth more than their lives, then they should be kept alive....and only for that reason. If a person who is captured is not a US Citizen and is a combatant who fights under the flag of no nation, then the only right they should expect under the custody of The United States is the right not to die as a result of direct action by US officials and the right not to sustain permanent physical harm.
But if they can be made to fear dying or torture...so be it. If they can be subjected to painful or uncomfortable treatment that will cause them to cooperate with interrogations when otherwise they would not...so be it. If they get slapped, punched, degraded, humiliated, embarassed or otherwise belittled....so be it. If their natural sense of Muslim "entitlement" is insulted....so friggin' be it.
I have a great deal of tolerance for doing what it takes to get information that will save American lives....A GREAT DEAL OF TOLERANCE. Keep them alive and keep them healthy enough to carry out the daily regimins of life in a maximum security prison. That's plenty humane for me. Prison should not be pleasant. It should not be comfortable. It should suck and it should suck BADLY.
I believe Human rights should be fought for and forward projected by the United States to those who are oppressed and victimized....not to the oppressors and victimizers. Bleeding heart liberals have always rushed to the aid of society's monsters to ensure their humane treatment. I expect nothing more from your kind. You may be a fantastic "world citizen" but based on what you've written, I question the integrity of your "American Citizenship". You may be a court officer. You may be a human rights advocate, by title. But you are no patriot. You are the opposite of a patriot. By fighting for the rights and even the release of people who believe that even YOU are an infadel and would kill you in a heartbeat, you endanger the rights and lives of others whom they will victimize.
Pro bono or not, there's something in it for you...recognition, prestige, acceptance...long term financial benefit. I don't know what it is, but there's something. People don't work for free. You're selling something....I don't know what it is, but it smells like your loyalty....if there ever were any. Who's side are you on anyway?
These things that do not bring the immediate threat of death to save American lives are fine by me.
Well, now, that would include injections with plutonium, the fingernails, amputations, rape, etc. So, theoretically, you're okay with those?
Oh Wadical,
First off, i really think you need to hear this: your grandstanding, flagwaving sweeping claims of how much you're willing to hurt others for America -- they don't really mean anything, they're just drumbeating and you showcasing what you think you need to say to "be a man." So, that is a response to everything of that sort in your comment (which is a large proportion of your comment).
But you are no patriot. You are the opposite of a patriot.
Actually, I'm defending the constitution and the rule of law. You know this "rule of law" thing, right? Goes with "we are a nation of laws, not men."
By fighting for the rights and even the release
Let's get one thing straight: we're fighting for their right to a fair trial. Some of them are bad guys, but even bad guys deserve a trial. That's what our country is founded upon: equality before the law, the presumption of innocence, a fair and expedient trial before an impartial arbiter. All that jazz.
of people who believe that even YOU are an infadel and would kill you in a heartbeat, you endanger the rights and lives of others whom they will victimize.
You know, not everyone in Gitmo is a bad guy. Not everyone is an Islamic radical. Why, more than half of them have been released on their own recognisance -- you wouldn't do that to bad guys, would you? Or do you assume they are all guilty?
Have you heard of the cases of Maher Arar and Khaled al-Masri? Two completely innocent guys who were "renditioned" and tortured, beat wtih metal cables, kept in absolutely filthy, medieval codntions, and for nothing. What do you think about that? How did that happen?
I believe Human rights should be fought for and forward projected by the United States to those who are oppressed and victimized....not to the oppressors and victimizers.
Well, that's your view, and it is in direct conflict with the very well established, universally accepted principle that human rights are for all humans, period.
Pro bono or not, there's something in it for you...recognition, prestige, acceptance...long term financial benefit. I don't know what it is, but there's something. People don't work for free. You're selling something....I don't know what it is, but it smells like your loyalty....if there ever were any.
Maybe there is fame and fortune for those who are the stars of the Gitmo litigations, but I am not a star, i do my small part, and i know it helps. I do it so that I can say later when all of this is as roundly condemned and declared a national disgrace (like Japanese internment was) that I did not sit idly by and do nothing. I also do it because, as an immigrant from the USSR, it makes me absolutely livid to see my beloved USA take a turn for USSR-style tactics.
Who's side are you on anyway?
The law's, the constitution's.
You seem to be on the side of vengeful, indiscriminate sadism.
"Actually, I'm defending the constitution and the rule of law. You know this "rule of law" thing, right? Goes with "we are a nation of laws, not men."
How does the Constitution of the United States afford any rights to non-citizens captured on the battlefield who represent no sovereign nation?
"Let's get one thing straight: we're fighting for their right to a fair trial."
Where in the Constitution or United States Code is an Arab insurgent captured on a foreign battlefield afforded a "fair trial" under US law?
"I do it so that I can say later when all of this is as roundly condemned and declared a national disgrace (like Japanese internment was) that I did not sit idly by and do nothing."
Don't compare Gitmo to the WWII Japanese internments. Those were "American Citizens". Your clients are not!
"You seem to be on the side of vengeful, indiscriminate sadism."
You really are detached. I AM ON THE SIDE OF VICTORY. You can call it grandstanding, machismo drumbeating all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you are helping the opposition. You are a collaborator. Perhaps you'd fit in better in France. My opinion that you are unpatriotic is solid. Everything's for sale, right Dora? Even your loyalty to your country. You claim to represent the law, yet you seek to extend a citizen's rights to people who are not guaranteed them Constitutionally nor by any treaty. They aren't soldiers. They are insurgents. They are nationless. You sit, self-righteous and claim to be on the side of the law?? You are on the side of the enemy. You are an embarrassment.
Wadical, stop your screaming, you have no idea what you're talking about.
First off, Don't compare Gitmo to the WWII Japanese internments. Those were "American Citizens". Your clients are not!
Some of our clients were: don't you remember, Jose Padilla and Hamdi? Both US citizens!
How does the Constitution of the United States afford any rights to non-citizens captured on the battlefield who represent no sovereign nation?
The law of nations is to be enforced by congress and it is part of our law, as are treaties.
Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power ...
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Article IV
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
You know what "the Law of Nations" is? international law, that's what!
Where in the Constitution or United States Code is an Arab insurgent captured on a foreign battlefield afforded a "fair trial" under US law?
Treaties are the supreme law of the law. The Geneva Conventions specify that everyone is either a soldier or a civilian, the end.
Sorry, Wadical, but you've waded in too far into the pool. Go back to the kiddie pool. There, yelling and screaming may still get you somewhere.
"Wadical, stop your screaming, you have no idea what you're talking about."
You've yet to prove that.
"Some of our clients were: don't you remember, Jose Padilla and Hamdi? Both US citizens!"
Such a small insignificant percentage of the overall population at Gitmo, but yes I will concede to you that if they are American Citizens then they are entitled to counsel and due process and should be charged with treason.
Public International Law? International Law has no compulsory judicial system or penal system. Its horizontal construct predicating that all sovereign nations are theoretically equal is in conflict with our hierarchical system of laws. Arguably, International Law is subject to the consent of the participating nations. There are many, unlike you, who believe that sovereign states maintain free rein over their own affairs. It's all about interpretation, is it not? You seem to suggest that the Supremacy Clause places the United States under jurisdiction of ALL international law. The clause clearly states that the treaties must be made "...under the authority of the United States." solidifying the premise that International Law is the law of the land only so long as the United States chooses to consent.
I'm sure you're aware of the book, Essentials of the Law in Two Volumes (A review of Blackstone's Commentaries) written by Marshall D Ewell. Chapter V of this book deals with Offenses against the Law of Nations. In that Chapter Ewell describes the law of nations as "...a system of rules deducible by natural reason and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world, in order to decide all disputes, to regulate all ceremonies and civilities, and to insure the observance of justice and good faith in that intercourse which must frequently occur between two or more independent states and the individuals belonging to each...This general law is founded upon this principle, that different nations ought in time of peace to do one another all the good they can, and in time of war as little harm as possible, without prejudice to their own real interests.
Hmmmm. I think based upon this interpretation, it could be reasonably argued that The Law of Nations is a Gentleman's pact between civilized nations. Terrorists are not civilized. They are not claimed by any nation...not Iran, not Lybia, not Syria....no one claims them. They are flagless. They are nationless. They are rogue. It is reasonable to assume that International Law does not apply to them. It is also clear from this text that no nation should sacrifice their own real interests in favor of International Law.
"Treaties are the supreme law of the law."
No. Though the treaty making power of the US Govt. is broader in scope than the law making power of Congress, the intent is that treaties must comply with the United States Constitution and cannot trump anything contained therein. Any act of treaty that does conflict would be an abuse. They can trump State constitutions and Laws as is clear from reading the Supremacy Clause, but not the US Constitution. So only the Constitution, the Laws of the United States and treaties entered into or made under proper authority of the United States shall be deemed supreme law of the land. We are only subject to those international laws that we agree to be subject to....not all.
"The Geneva Conventions specify that everyone is either a soldier or a civilian, the end."
Yet strangely enough there is no room to define an armed combatant who is not a soldier. A civilian is a non-combatant. A soldier is commanded by the armed force of a nation state. So insurgents/terrorists are an anomaly....a creature for which this convention was not conceived. These people aren't defending themselves (an act for which I would still readily consider them to be civilians). They are mounting armed offensives against the US military and her allies, an act which the military is compelled to defend against and thereby engage with deadly force....an act which is prohibited by the Geneva Convention. But they aren't soldiers. So in the end it all comes down to interpretation. You and your traitorous friends have your interpretation and those patriots who dwell in my camp who have their own. Though I'm sure it chaps your taint, my camp is bigger than your camp. We aren't all the ignorant rednecks you imagine us to be.
"Sorry, Wadical, but you've waded in too far into the pool. Go back to the kiddie pool. There, yelling and screaming may still get you somewhere."
Nice try. But no....I think I'm treading water just fine.
Damn, this is getting good. Go ahead Dora......It sounds like you my dear (and I do mean that is the most sexist way possible) need to regroup....wow....and you spent money on law school, and some "redneck" just busted that out on you......I would get a refund.
It is reasonable to assume that International Law does not apply to them. It is also clear from this text that no nation should sacrifice their own real interests in favor of International Law.
No, it's not reasonable to assume that. International law, the law of nations, applies to all nations and ALL PEOPLE. You need to go read Filartiga v. Pena-Ilara.
You should also probably read the UN Charter, and the Vienna conventions on treaties, which explain the extent of each nation's powers, and what the law of nations and "jus cogens"(also known as peremptory norm) is. Do you know what that is? It's international law/law of nations that CANNOT BE VIOLATED BY ANY NATION. None. You can't derogate from it.
Though the treaty making power of the US Govt. is broader in scope than the law making power of Congress, the intent is that treaties must comply with the United States Constitution and cannot trump anything contained therein. Any act of treaty that does conflict would be an abuse.
All true, but none of the treaties that apply to Gitmo detainees are in conflict with our constitution.
So only the Constitution, the Laws of the United States and treaties entered into or made under proper authority of the United States shall be deemed supreme law of the land. We are only subject to those international laws that we agree to be subject to....not all.
Kind of true, but if you look at early jurisprudence from the Supreme Court, it is unanimous in the contention that the president is subject to the law of nations. In the Paquette Habana case (1900), the Supreme Court ruled that customary international law (international law made by the practice of nations rather than treaties, also known as the law of nations) is part of federal law. Uh oh.
Yet strangely enough there is no room to define an armed combatant who is not a soldier. A civilian is a non-combatant. A soldier is commanded by the armed force of a nation state. So insurgents/terrorists are an anomaly....a creature for which this convention was not conceived.
Incorrect again. If you knew anything about statutory counstruction, you would know that just because something is absent from the law does not mean it is allowed. See, for example, The Steel Seizure cases, where Justice Jackson contends (in a concurrence that has since become the mainline jurisprudence) that if Congress considered allowing something, putting something in, and then decided not to, that is decisive. The Geneva Conventions, just like FISA, for example, are created to encompass all situations. They don't allow for exceptions, intentionally.
These people aren't defending themselves (an act for which I would still readily consider them to be civilians). They are mounting armed offensives against the US military and her allies, an act which the military is compelled to defend against and thereby engage with deadly force....an act which is prohibited by the Geneva Convention. But they aren't soldiers. So in the end it all comes down to interpretation. You and your traitorous friends have your interpretation and those patriots who dwell in my camp who have their own. Though I'm sure it chaps your taint, my camp is bigger than your camp. We aren't all the ignorant rednecks you imagine us to be.
What are you in, in kindergarden? mine is bigger than yours, is that what's deciding issues of the law now? My god, man, get an education.
Also, and this is a founding principle of international humanitarian law, by which the US is unquestionably bound (see Paquette Habana above), everyone is obliged to act within the law, no matter what the other guy did, who is the aggressor, etc. Even if they are acting illegally, the US is still obliged to act within the conventions.
Have you noticed how the administration argument is not "we violate international law and we torture, but that's okay, because international law doesn't even really apply"? It's not. Their argument is "we don't torture, and the international law we seem to be violating, we're not, it just the treaties didn't contemplate these situations." Why do you think they bother to reinterpret the treaties and make all these convoluted arguments? For decorum? No sir, it's because saying "we torture and that's okay" is a violation of the peremptory norm (which incudes terrorism, torture, slavery, piracy and a few other things). And the US has a law, the Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows anyone (not just us citizens or residents of the US) to sue anyone else (not just citizens or resident of the US) for violation of peremptory norm.
No one in the world, not even Saudi Arabia or China or Lybia or Iran will ever admit to violating the peremptory norm, because then, your ass is on the line, and you're nearly liable to get invaded under the "armed humanitarian intervention" doctrine.
And why not admit to violating international law? Well, if it's treaty-based, like the Geneva Convetnions, then you're violating a Treaty, which is the supreme law of the land. Big problem.
And if it's customary international law, then you're violating federal law (see Paquette Habana). Also a big problem.
Filártiga v. Peña-Irala grants US courts jurisdiction to rule on cases involving people who are not US citizens for acts of torture violating the law of nations or treaties involving the US, committed outside the US. Yeah, I've heard of it. I fail to see how that applies to the text I quoted regarding the interpretation of just what the law of nations encompasses. So the US has jurisdiction to prosecute cases under international law. That's not what this discussion is about. This discussion is about whether what is happening in Guantanamo Bay Cuba is torture. You brought into play my personal views on torture, which have no bearing on this case whatsoever. Try to stay on subject and not confuse the two.
You flapping along about International Law is pointless. If you intend to convince me that the United States has no right to its own sovereignty and that we operate under a one world government you are wasting your time. The idea of a one world, international body of laws that trump all of the laws of a sovereign nation negates the sovereignty of that nation altogether. What's the purpose of separate nations if we are all subject to the same laws anyway? That is a whole other argument for another time.
Paquette v. Habana. Ahhh the ol' trump card championed by international activists as being the landmark case determining that all international law is part of our law. More than a few scholars dispute this as a far reaching attempt to apply all international law as part of US law. That's absurd. This case was about the sale of confiscated Cuban fishing vessels by the US Navy, an issue which had never come before the courts. You and your activist friends miss the point of this ruling altogether. International law was applied when (to quote that very case) ..."there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision" Funny how you left that part out! So International Law may fill a gap, so to speak, when a court rules on a subject for which no domestic rule of decision exists. Since such an issue had never been addressed by the Supreme Court, the court decided to look to International Law as well as the writings of prominent scholars of the day for help interpreting it. This situation of fishing vessels is far different from the rights of non-soldier combatants taken prisoner on a foreign battlefield to US judicial process. It is the Constitutional role of the executive and legislative branches of the US Govt to determine the extent of this country's international obligations and how best to carry them out....not the judicial branch.
"If you knew anything about statutory counstruction [sic], you would know that just because something is absent from the law does not mean it is allowed."
I do know something of statutory construction and I know that, despite your elitist attitude about it, you don't need a law degree to understand it. I understand that while technically true, you are still presented with the monumental task of proving it's illegality in absence of a ruling statute.
"The Geneva Conventions, just like FISA, for example, are created to encompass all situations."
"All situations" conceivable at the time of its conception. No one conceived a non-state sponsored terrorist organization with global reach engaging US armed forces on the battlefield. It just wasn't heard of at the time. They may not allow for exceptions, but nevertheless exceptions still exist and until that gap is closed, it will be argued vehemently by those who wish to combat and defeat terrorism. It is clear from your presented stance that you do not. You'd rather stand up for terrorists than stand up for their victims.
"What are you in, in kindergarden [sic]? mine is bigger than yours, is that what's deciding issues of the law now?"
Kindergarten? Whatever. I'm addressing the fact that your view is a minority view in this country. And YES, you stubborn elitist! Though our country's laws were designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, it doesn't change the fact that the majority has always created, interpreted, and enforced those laws in a democracy. If you don't like it...move!
"Also, and this is a founding principle of international humanitarian law, by which the US is unquestionably bound (see Paquette Habana above),..."
Unquestionably bound?? No there is most definitely "question" surrounding your interpretation of that case as applying to ALL US laws. I think I demonstrated that.
"...everyone is obliged to act within the law, no matter what the other guy did, who is the aggressor, etc. Even if they are acting illegally, the US is still obliged to act within the conventions."
No argument. I agree. Now get to proving that we are violating law and you'll be on your way to your one world socialist utopia. Had it already been proven, you'd be doing something else for a living, now wouldn't you?
"Have you noticed how the administration argument is not "we violate international law and we torture, but that's okay, because international law doesn't even really apply"? It's not. Their argument is "we don't torture, and the international law we seem to be violating, we're not, it just the treaties didn't contemplate these situations."
That's what this whole friggin' discussion is about. I agree with the administration. We don't torture. If you've got a client who was whipped with a frayed electrical cord then prove it already and quit wasting your time defending your hollow case on some blog!
"Why do you think they bother to reinterpret the treaties and make all these convoluted arguments? For decorum?"
Because the treaties need to be reinterpreted, YOUR HIGHNESS! They didn't contemplate these situations and any law that is to be strictly followed ought to be crystal clear. Your treaty is not! Not with respect to persons who slip through the cracks of being citizens or soldiers.
I see what you're doing. You're trying to blend all of my arguments into one and defeat it with a singular point. I'm not stupid. But you, apparently make a habit of underestimating your opponent.
1- I argue that what is happening is not torture.
2- I argue that the detainees have no right to US judicial process to the same degree that a citizen does
3- I assert my "personal" views, only at your behest, that I have no problem with torture when the end result is that it saves lives and,
4- I separately dispute your claim that all International Law applies and is enforcible as a part of US law.
You try to argue it all as one and somehow you've morphed it all (as is typical of liberals) into a fraudulent strawman argument that I agree with torture, and that torturing detainees in Gitmo is OK because International Law has no jurisdiction to police such actions. That's a bunch of crap! Then you punch holes in your imaginary paper tiger with all your legalese mumbo jumbo and make it look like you've somehow revealed me for the impotent idiot I am. That's pathetic. It's pathetic that you'd resort to such a lame tactic. It's pathetic that you're incapable of seeing that I'm not an idiot, that I am educated and that I do possess above average intelligence. Strawman arguments are for the weak and inept.
If torture is happening, it ought be stopped because it is illegal, not because I disagree with its use. You have to prove that its happening. Then you have to prove that what is happening constitutes "torture". We disagree on both accounts. But that is two separate arguments. And until you prove it, this is all a big waste of time, because you are not going to change my point of view with such a lack of evidence and such a flimsy argument as you've presented.
Filártiga v. Peña-Irala grants US courts jurisdiction to rule on cases involving people who are not US citizens for acts of torture violating the law of nations or treaties involving the US, committed outside the US....
Maybe you need to actually read the case.
"Upon ratification of the Constitution, the thirteen former colonies were fused into a single nation, one which, in its relations with foreign states, is bound both to observe and construe the accepted norms of international law, formerly known as the law of nations. Under the Articles of Confederation, the several states had interpreted and applied this body of doctrine as a *878 part of their common law, but with the founding of the “more perfect Union” of 1789, the law of nations became preeminently a federal concern."
Then the case goes on to discuss what are violations of the laws of nations, and they include torutre, slavery, piracy, etc.
You flapping along about International Law is pointless. If you intend to convince me that the United States has no right to its own sovereignty and that we operate under a one world government you are wasting your time. The idea of a one world, international body of laws that trump all of the laws of a sovereign nation negates the sovereignty of that nation altogether. What's the purpose of separate nations if we are all subject to the same laws anyway? That is a whole other argument for another time.
Well, you would be at odds with jurisprudence such as that quoted above, and many treaties the US has not only ratified, but instigated, such as the UN Charter. You treat sovereignty as binary, either the US has sovereignty or it does not. It is a spectrum. Every time the US signs a treaty, a little bit of sovereignty is gone. The UN Charter, the WTO, the Geneva Conventions, they all sign away powers of the US government to do whatever the hell it wants, and imposes some restrictions on what the US govt can and cannot do.
More than a few scholars dispute this as a far reaching attempt to apply all international law as part of US law. That's absurd. This case was about the sale of confiscated Cuban fishing vessels by the US Navy, an issue which had never come before the courts.
The case did not make such a distinction, so why should we interpret one? It spoke of international law in general, just like Filartiga and Tel-Oren v. Libya did. If we took your interpretive scheme, we could always say that precedent does not apply because the facts are slightly different.
You and your activist friends miss the point of this ruling altogether. International law was applied when (to quote that very case) ..."there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision" Funny how you left that part out! So International Law may fill a gap, so to speak, when a court rules on a subject for which no domestic rule of decision exists. Since such an issue had never been addressed by the Supreme Court, the court decided to look to International Law as well as the writings of prominent scholars of the day for help interpreting it.
Ah yes, but that does not apply to peremtory norm. Hopefully the court will never have to decide this question, but I would wager that if Congress makes a law that we can now engage in piracy, or the President states it as such, absent any treaty, the Courts would still say this is unconstitutional. There are limits to what Congress and the president can allow with respect to international law.
This situation of fishing vessels is far different from the rights of non-soldier combatants taken prisoner on a foreign battlefield to US judicial process.
But the same legal analysis may very well apply with respect to the question of whether international law applies, and which parts of it apply. You'd know this if you had gone to law school. You take the facts, you take the law, and you apply the law to the facts. However, some points of law don't change because of the facts.
It is the Constitutional role of the executive and legislative branches of the US Govt to determine the extent of this country's international obligations and how best to carry them out....not the judicial branch.
Where did you get this completely unfounded morsel? The treaty power? Foreign relations power? Congressional power to punish violations of the laws of nations? How do you think this works with duty to faithfully execute the laws?
I understand that while technically true, you are still presented with the monumental task of proving it's illegality in absence of a ruling statute.
If Congress says, as it did in FISA, that any surveillance done outside of the parameters of this act is a crime, that's proof of illegality. The Geneva Conventions tell you what to do with unlawful combatants -- treat them as you would treat your own civilians.
"All situations" conceivable at the time of its conception. No one conceived a non-state sponsored terrorist organization with global reach engaging US armed forces on the battlefield. It just wasn't heard of at the time.
And which time was this? What do you think, the people who wrote the GC were idiots? They had just gone through 2 world wars. You think there was no terrorism? You ever hear of Gavrilo Princip? Anarchists? Why don't you read about the history of terrorism first?
And, as I am sure you know, terrorism was widespread in Europe between world war 2 and the seventies, and yet, when the 1977 Protocols to the GC were drafted, once again, there was no inclusion of any special category of persons.
Why do you think that is?
They may not allow for exceptions, but nevertheless exceptions still exist
They don't exist. They only exist by an artifical classification for convenience and, frankly, laziness purposes.
You'd rather stand up for terrorists than stand up for their victims.
How do you know I'm not standing up for the victims? Is standing up for the victims synonymous with indiscriminate abuse of people who haven't been even charged with any crime? I don't think that benefits the victims...
I'm addressing the fact that your view is a minority view in this country.
Maybe it is, but that doesn't make it wrong, and it doesn't make your view right. More than 50% of Americans believe in ghosts, my friend. what does that mean?
Though our country's laws were designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, it doesn't change the fact that the majority has always created, interpreted, and enforced those laws in a democracy. If you don't like it...move!
Really? do you think Brown v. Board of Education was a decision that reflected the majority opinion in this country?
"Also, and this is a founding principle of international humanitarian law, by which the US is unquestionably bound (see Paquette Habana above),..."
Unquestionably bound?? No there is most definitely "question" surrounding your interpretation of that case as applying to ALL US laws. I think I demonstrated that.
You're living in denial. That case has been cited 2430 times. Do you think they were all about seizures of ships?
Now get to proving that we are violating law and you'll be on your way to your one world socialist utopia. Had it already been proven, you'd be doing something else for a living, now wouldn't you?
i'm a corporate lawyer for a living. I do pro bono on the side through my firm.
That's what this whole friggin' discussion is about. I agree with the administration. We don't torture.
If you keep redefining torture. Someday, the definition of torture will be "beating with an alien's monkey wrench" and the administration can say, "we don't torture." Do you know what "de facto" means? How about "we de facto torture people"?
If you've got a client who was whipped with a frayed electrical cord then prove it already and quit wasting your time defending your hollow case on some blog!
Ah, were it that easy! Khaled al-Masri's case was just dismissed because of the state secrets doctrine. Very convenient -- the US government never has to defend itself against allegations of torture by invoking state secrets. The merits of the case were never addressed.
But you've see Abu Ghraib...so, you know what kind of stuff goes on.
1- I argue that what is happening is not torture.
I don't have any polite response to that. What is torture, according to you? what is illegal? Waterboarding? Staged executions? Conditioning medical care on cooperation with interrogators?
2- I argue that the detainees have no right to US judicial process to the same degree that a citizen does
Debatable. Probably not, but that does not mean that they have no access to the judicial process.
4- I separately dispute your claim that all International Law applies and is enforcible as a part of US law.
Customary international law, especially peremtory norm --- yes. It's not a debate, I can't explain it to you any better.
If torture is happening, it ought be stopped because it is illegal, not because I disagree with its use. You have to prove that its happening. Then you have to prove that what is happening constitutes "torture". We disagree on both accounts. But that is two separate arguments. And until you prove it, this is all a big waste of time, because you are not going to change my point of view with such a lack of evidence and such a flimsy argument as you've presented.
All right. Let's begin: what is torture?
I suggest you dispense with your pompous elitist attitude. It is becoming tiresome and quickly disqualifies you as a worthy opponent. The fact that you went to law school doesn't impress me in the slightest. Neither does it intimidate me. I don't debate your knowledge of the legal processes by which this country is governed. I debate your interpretations. You are not the "end all" expert and to suggest that one must have a law degree to understand the law is the same as suggesting that those who are not in possession of said degree need not concern themselves with legal matters at all. That is absolutely "elitist".
You are legally educated and that is the only reason I've continued this debate with you thus far, hoping to glean some enlightenment about that which I may not fully understand. But you hinder that process by the "angle of attack" of your beak! By continuing your relentless suggestions that "If you'd have gone to law school, you'd have known that" you make this debate a waste of time and energy. Your snobbish remarks alluding to your perceived elite class because you happen to practice law is the lowest common denominator in blogosphere debate.
I have no doubt that you can do better. I'm just not sure you wish to do anything here but inflate your own academic pedigree. Frankly, no one cares. As a former member of Intertel, I can assure you that you are not conversing with an imbecile. Not even close. So if you care to drop the "I'm smarter than you" charade, we can continue. Otherwise, I shall take my leave of you.
"All right. Let's begin: what is torture?"
Oh, no my lady. You're the self professed legal expert. By all means...You first. Don't worry, I have no doubt that I will disagree with your official international legal definition of just what constitutes "torture".
Wadical, you're a coward.
The whole "drop your elitist tack" shpeel -- you've just given yourself an exit strategy so you can have a pretext to run away if you are losing, because if there's one thing rightwingers can't do, it's ever admit they were wrong.
It's all in your mind, tight-Wad. You can't win on the issues, so you start attacking my "elitist attitude" or whatever. So typical.
A couple of points: the more I learn about the law, the more I learn how much law school is necessary to really understand it, and how the common presumption among many that anyone can dig deep into the law is just as absurd as someone making the same claim about genetics or neuroscience.
And your whole "you're an elitist" crybaby attitude -- i"ve said maybe 3 things that refer to law school, I think I've been more than gracious in indulging in this debate. i'm not even an "elitist." if you only knew...
As for what is torture, again, such a coward.
According to the Third GC, by which the president is bound according to the Supreme Court in Hamdan, noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
Here is a great idea - we simply refuse to sign any document from this day forward that has anything to do with the UN.
Wadical, if OJ can get away with it, we can to. Besides, who is going to stop us?
Fortunately, that will never happen, Robert, because even the dumbest people in charge realize how valuable the UN is. Some people disparage it, but what exactly would the world do without it? It would be very bad for us and the world if the UN dissolved.
And it would dissolve just like the League of Nations did if the US withdraws (or never joined, as with the League of NAtions). You ever hear of Machukuo and Abyssinia? These unlawful actions taken by League of Nations members precipiated its dissolving. And its dissolving precipiated the breakdown in international law and order that led to WW2. I'm not saying that the failure of the League of Nations caused WW2, but it was certainly one of many causes. It had failed in its mission.
Even before the end of WW2, the US and other Allies were planning on what to do after the war was over, and they decided that one of the priorities was to create a LEague of Nations 2.0 that wouldn't fail. Et voila, the UN.
I'm no coward, Dora. I've risked my life in more than one type of uniform. Lemme, guess....you havent. You sit down behind that desk of yours with your piece of paper framed behind your head and assume that no one can understand the law but you. You've made several references to law school and reminding everyone here that you've attended. You've made severeal bitchy remarks to Jennifer. You've made several remarks challenging others' intelligence.
I've engaged in countless debates and argued many issues. I don't have a problem arguing with someone who's willing to do it without casting despersions and insults. You really are a very typical, fully indoctrinated liberal bot.
Exit strategy? I hadn't "exited" I merely said that you need to drop that elitist bullshit you keep spouting because, although you cannot behave yourself, I'm not sure how long I can continue to behave mine. You think I can't look up legal definitions like you can? Are you serious? I know what defninition you were about to cut and paste! You think any amount of information available to you isn't available to someone else?
I just don't have the time desire or inclination to continue a discussion with someone who claims to argue for a living who cannot seem to do it with a few civil rules attached. And here's why. I know my limits. I know I'm about full of you're elitist bullshit! And I know that this has no hope of evolving into anything short of a mudfest.
I've asked you. Then I strongly suggested it to you. And now I'm telling you. You may be the most knowledgable law nerd ever to stroll the hallways of hell, but you suck at this. Somewhere behind all your legal babble is a mind that will never understand that despite the language in your "treaties" and your "international laws"....GUANTANAMO BAY prison still exists! Interrogations still happen! Your prison isn't going anywhere. And I hope they have 100 more black sites in Romania and Poland and scattered across the desert in Iraq. And I hope, "national secrets" are cited everytime you get you get close to showering an unlawful combatant with all kinds of rights and privledges that only civilized people deserve.
We live in a different age with new threats and new enemies with no return address who possess the, structure, organization, support, weaponry, technical knowledge and financial backing to annihilate our free society. And none of the framers of the Geneva Conventions could have ever fathomed the extent to which terrorism has evolved and I guarantee you NEITHER COULD YOU before 9-11.
Yes, terrorism has existed for centuries but never, EVER on the scale or with the global reach that it has today. You want to talk about human rights and humanity?? Humanity cannot survive another 9-11. Screw your treaties. Screw your antiquated laws. Laws must change to accomodate these threats or there must be men willing to do the right thing, surrepticiously if necessary despite the handcuffs placed upon us by the UN. We don't just fight armies anymore. We fight an ideology. We fight a religion. We fight men with no uniforms and no return addresses. We fight an enemy who saws off screaming civilian's heads with a knife. You?? You claim to fight for the human rights of the oppressed. But in reality, you fight for yourself.
THERE IS A POINT where your strict adherance to the letter of the law will fail you. There exists a limit where you would abandon your claim that torture is always wrong. Pray you never discover what it's like to have a personal stake in the lifesaving information that must come from a man who must be physically coerced. Oh, lemme guess....you don't pray either. You don't need a God, you have your degree....you are God.
The UN is the most bumbling, inept, corrupt organization that was ever created. WWII was caused by inaction and lack of focus on the part of good people. Had the US intervened before 1942, millions of lives could have been saved.
The UN does nothing. It barks, but with tone and pitch that no one notices because of their inability and lack of fortitude to follow through.
Without the US, the UN would collapse within five years, yet remains one of the most anti-American organizations in the world.
The US is the role model for the world. We have unparalleled leadership in business, medicine, and military arts. To my knowledge, there has never been a US citizen put to sea in a rowboat to get to Cuba or Vietnam.
Wadical is right - Despite the rhetoric about who does what and how they do it, you sleep soundly because there are men willing to own the night,and keep the wolves at bay.
Look, Wadical, I already went through the song-and-dance on the legal theory and the facts with you. Your flowery alarmist language is not very convincing since it has little to do with the law behind these issues. If convincing yourself that "9/11 changed everything" helps you feel better about what's going on in this country, fine, but don't be under any illusion that it has anything to do with reality.
And it would help if you got your facts straight. You write: "And I hope, "national secrets" are cited everytime you get you get close to showering an unlawful combatant with all kinds of rights and privledges that only civilized people deserve. "
You don't really care, do you, that "nationl secrets" has been invoked as a defense to allegations made by two men, one german and one canadian, who have been cleared by their respective governments of any ties to terrorism, who are not enemy combatants, and never were? You just don't care about individual people's lives or the facts. (and people don't trot out the ole 'the terrorists don't care either' line. i know they don't care, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care).
As for your whole "elitist" rant, it's pretty obvious that you've got some pretty serious inferiority complexes with respect to certain types of people. Look how many times you used the word "elitist" in your post. It would probably be wise to get over those issues.
PS It's "aspersions" not "despersions."
Robert, just imagine what the world would be like if the UN disappeared. What do you think it would be like?
Wadical is right - Despite the rhetoric about who does what and how they do it, you sleep soundly because there are men willing to own the night,and keep the wolves at bay.
And you don't starve to death because of our farmers, and you don't get cholera because of our water treatment workers. Those men that fight to "keep the wolves at bay," they wouldn't do so well without them defense technology engineers and bullet manufacturers, would they? How would they fight if they had no fatigues to wear or guns to carry or food to eat?
It's all interconnected. Lawyers have their part in the interconnected web too...:)
Thanks for my first 100 POST topic. I know it was only three of us, but I claim it anyway....lol.
I have a 0700 meeting. Be back later to respond to comments.
Post a Comment