Re: OT - With the stroke of a pen
Jane
vj wrote:
> ...over 200 years of US rule of Law, with the Constitution at the apex
> has been rendered moot. It is now official; the USA we once knew no
> longer exists.
\
Nonsense.
The law reported on here does not deprive you--or anybody else--of a
single Constitutional right. It does not apply to 99.999999% of things
for which you might find yourself in federal custody. It applies ONLY
to people captured in a war zone, in a time when we are, in fact, at
war--and it only applies to a very tiny minority even of them.
Whether you realize it or not, it has never been customary in the
US, or anywhere else as far as I know, to accord the enemy in time of
war the due process rights of citizens in criminal trials. That law
actually gives those prisoners MORE rights than they would have had in
WWII or in Korea, at least.
Nor has anything been done--nor can it be done--"at the stroke of
a pen." Judicial review is just around the corner. It always is.
But the idea that the sky is falling because we do not treat enemy
prisoners as if they were defendants in an ordinary criminal trial is
not just wrongheaded, it's destructive of any ability to manage what is
in fact a real, honest to God war.
Trust me, if you want to see what it would be like for the
America you know to REALLY vanish, try putting us in a position where
we cannot defend ourselves against people who think all the things
we're actually for (free speech, the rights of women, freedom of
conscience) are evils that ought to be stamped out.
Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com
Greggo
> America you know to REALLY vanish, try putting us in a position where
> we cannot defend ourselves against people who think all the things
> we're actually for (free speech, the rights of women, freedom of
> conscience) are evils that ought to be stamped out.
POINT!
Greggo
Andrew Barss
: But the idea that the sky is falling because we do not treat enemy
: prisoners as if they were defendants in an ordinary criminal trial is
: not just wrongheaded, it's destructive of any ability to manage what is
: in fact a real, honest to God war.
Nonsense. Bush wants (i) the military and CIA to be able to
(continue to) torture prisoners,(ii) to imprison them indefinitely
without trial, and (iii) try them without them or their lawyers
having access to evidence against them.
If you can point me to any clear evidence that torture is an effective
interrogation policy, go right ahead. Absent that, it's a useless
and inhumane way to treat anyone. Let's not forget that the record
the administration has of caturing just people who are actually
guilty is pretty, um, what's the word, ah!: nonexistent.
With respect to (ii) and (iii), setting moral issues aside, you're
making an irrational leap in supposing that this approach to
detainment, incarceration, and prosecution does anything whatsoever to
"defend ourselves" effectively in the scenario you describe below.
I believe the threat is a real and awful one, but nothing in this
recent act by Bush you're defending here addresses it properly.
: Trust me, if you want to see what it would be like for the
: America you know to REALLY vanish, try putting us in a position where
: we cannot defend ourselves against people who think all the things
: we're actually for (free speech, the rights of women, freedom of
: conscience) are evils that ought to be stamped out.
: Jane Haddam
: http://www.janehaddam.com
-- Andy Barss
Jane
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Jane <Jane...@aol.com> wrote:
> : But the idea that the sky is falling because we do not treat enemy
> : prisoners as if they were defendants in an ordinary criminal trial is
> : not just wrongheaded, it's destructive of any ability to manage what is
> : in fact a real, honest to God war.
>
> Nonsense. Bush wants (i) the military and CIA to be able to
> (continue to) torture prisoners,(ii) to imprison them indefinitely
> without trial, and (iii) try them without them or their lawyers
> having access to evidence against them.
>
> If you can point me to any clear evidence that torture is an effective
> interrogation policy, go right ahead. Absent that, it's a useless
> and inhumane way to treat anyone.
I completely agree.
But at the moment, there's not a shred of actual, verifiable
evidence that Bush and Company have tortured anybody nor does anything
in this act allow torture.
As to imprisoning them indefininately w/out trial--so? They're
not criminal defendants. They've been picked up behind enemy lines in a
war, and historically, those people get sorted out after the war is
over, they don't usually get trials and lawyers. Not even with full
prisoner of war status under the GCs do they get lawyers and trials
while the war is still going on.
But allowing for such trials in this case, the prisoners have MORE
rights--not fewer--than they would have had in any previous conflict.
And that does not abrogate our Constitution, nor does it mean the
America we knew is "gone forever."
> With respect to (ii) and (iii), setting moral issues aside, you're
> making an irrational leap in supposing that this approach to
> detainment, incarceration, and prosecution does anything whatsoever to
> "defend ourselves" effectively in the scenario you describe below.
> I believe the threat is a real and awful one, but nothing in this
> recent act by Bush you're defending here addresses it properly.
I believe that treating enemy prisoners as if they were criminal
defendants is a good way to commit suicide.
If you actually want to worry about threats to the Constitution,
try some real ones. The property confiscation thing under the drug
laws, for instance. Or the fact that in many states these days, just
getting arrested for sexual assault can get you on a sex offenders
list, where you will stay EVEN IF you're acquitted. Hell, even if the
charges are dropped and you're never tried. And that fact of your name
on that list will follow you ever time you apply for a job, or for
credit, or move into a new neighborhood, just as if you'd been caught
in the act and there wasn't a breath of doubt about your guilt.
Want to try that thing about innocent until proven guilty?
Neither of those things are acts of the Bush administration, by
the way. So, in spite of the fact that they REALLY violate the
Constitution and take away at least some of your Constitutional rights,
they don't seem to generate much heat from the people worried about
giving lawyers to enemy combatants.
Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com
Jr@Ease
Many a Quaint and Curious Forgotten Post, and then wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
>As to imprisoning them indefininately w/out trial--so? They're
>not criminal defendants. They've been picked up behind enemy lines in a
>war, and historically, those people get sorted out after the war is
>over, they don't usually get trials and lawyers.
I keep wondering...are we "at war"? If so, who are we at war with?
I keep hearing about the war on terror, but I know of no country
called "Terror". Yes, we've attacked Iraq, but we're presently not at
war with Iraq. Nor are we at war with Afghanistan. We have troops
there, presumably looking for al-Qaeda, and helping to prop up the
government we put there, but we're not at war.
Are not most, if not all, of the detainees in Gitmo from our "war"
with Afghanistan? Which is now over.
Or else are they not high leaders of al-Qaeda picked up in raids in
Pakistan (and elsewhere - who knows where?), another country we are
not at war with?
If we are at war with terrorists, why didn't we declare it back in 72
after Munich? Or in the 80's when we lost all those marines in
Lebanon? Or at least when terrorists tried to blow up the WTC in 96?
I know the above sounds legalistic, but aren't we a country of laws?
Should we be making it up as we go along? It seems that's what we are
doing. Attacking sovereign nations peremptorily, then using the
resulting hostilities as an excuse to justify treating people we don't
like as prisoners of war. Then changing our laws retroactively to make
it all legal.
To me, it stinks.
Let's call a spade a spade. If we are at war with anyone, it's a war
against Islam. We are fighting an idealogy, a religion, that clashes
mightily with ours. Surely, the fight needs to be fought. The
terrorists are just the warriors fighting for their religion. But
calling this a war on terror is just a smoke screen. It's being used
as an excuse to shore up power in our own country. If a war against
religion requires us to change the rules a bit, let's do it with a
national discussion and scrutiny based on the reality of the
situation, not this trumped up cockamamie war on terrorism.
John P
Jane
Jr@Ease wrote:
>>
> I keep wondering...are we "at war?
Yes. In fact, the US Congress authorized both the actions that
put us at war.
If so, who are we at war with?
With two of the states (Afghanistan and Iraq) who supported
Pan-Islamism.
>
> I keep hearing about the war on terror, but I know of no country
> called "Terror".
Yes. It's a stupid phrase, and not accurate. See above.
Yes, we've attacked Iraq, but we're presently not at
> war with Iraq.
We are, however, most certainly at war IN Iraq.
Nor are we at war with Afghanistan. We have troops
> there, presumably looking for al-Qaeda, and helping to prop up the
> government we put there, but we're not at war.
Yes, in fact, we are at war. The war doesn't stop just because
we're winning, only once we've won.
>
> Are not most, if not all, of the detainees in Gitmo from our "war"
> with Afghanistan? Which is now over.
No, it's not. Pan-Islamism operates out of Afghanistan even now,
and the war will only be over when the country is secured. It's
nowhere near that.
>
> Or else are they not high leaders of al-Qaeda picked up in raids in
> Pakistan (and elsewhere - who knows where?), another country we are
> not at war with?
The war, however, is directed at Pan-Islamism. You're letting
yourself get tangled in anachronisms. War changes. It's different in
different periods. You seem to be saying "THIS war isn't like the wars
I'm used to, so it isn't really war." But it is.
Pan-Islamism isn't just an "ideology." It's a confederation of
groups, most of them armed, all getting significant financial and
material help from more conventional states, and the states and the
groups are united in a single goal--commitment to and defense of the
Umma, the worldwide community of Muslims, to whom Muslims owe their
allegiance and their obedience no matter where they live or what
passports they hold.
>
> If we are at war with terrorists, why didn't we declare it back in 72
> after Munich? Or in the 80's when we lost all those marines in
> Lebanon? Or at least when terrorists tried to blow up the WTC in 96?
You're absolutely right. We should have responded then. If we
had, 9/11 would never have happened. But we didn't. Better late than
never.
That's said, I think it's perfectly obvious why we didn't respond
then and we have responded now. The first two other cases you're
listing took place OFF American soil. The 96 attack was minor and
largely unsuccessful. 9/11 not only happened here, it was a major
hit, and at least part of it (think of the Pentagon) was a fairly
convention act of war on its own.
>
> I know the above sounds legalistic, but aren't we a country of laws?
> Should we be making it up as we go along? It seems that's what we are
> doing. Attacking sovereign nations peremptorily, then using the
> resulting hostilities as an excuse to justify treating people we don't
> like as prisoners of war. Then changing our laws retroactively to make
> it all legal.
I don't think that's what happened.
First, we didn't invade Iraq "peremptorily." We were a signatory
to a treaty that said that if Saddam did not allow full inspections
exactly the way the UN wanted them, then any of the participating
countries could (or the UN could) reinvade.
I think it's a valid question as to whether it made any sense to
do that on our own, or more or less os, but it isn't anything like
"peremptorily" and it isn't making it up as we go along.
Second, how exactly do you think the US, or anybody else, should
go about making rules and regulations for fundamental changes that we
cannot know are happening? You're like the head of the British Army in
the American Revolutionary War--God damn it! REAL wars are fought with
soldiers in formation, and we don't care what these ignorant colonials
are doing hiding behind trees.
Warfare changes. It has changed. We have to fight in this war,
with the techniques that will work now, not in the last one.
> Let's call a spade a spade. If we are at war with anyone, it's a war
> against Islam.
See above.
No, it's not "Islam."
We are fighting an idealogy, a religion, that clashes
> mightily with ours.
The problem isn't that the ideology clases with ours, but what it
is that side wants--control over any country in which Muslims are a
majority, and accommodations from other countries that enforce Shari'a
law on Muslims even if it contradicts the law of the country involved.
They're a good ways to getting it, too. In Britian, Muslim
defendants in criminal trials have succeeded in getting Jews thrown off
juries, women thrown off juries, even (in one case) a jury restricted
to Muslims. The UK welfare system has started to make
"accommodations" to polygamy. In France and Sweden, honor killings
go uninvestigated and unprosecuted. And that's a very small sample of
what has become a very large problem.
Surely, the fight needs to be fought. The
> terrorists are just the warriors fighting for their religion.
That's not what they're fighting for.
But
> calling this a war on terror is just a smoke screen.
No. It's just bad phrasing.
It's being used
> as an excuse to shore up power in our own country. If a war against
> religion requires us to change the rules a bit, let's do it with a
> national discussion and scrutiny based on the reality of the
> situation, not this trumped up cockamamie war on terrorism.
But we HAVE HAD such a discussion--one thing you have to give the
Bushies, they've been VERY careful to go to Congress and ask permission
for just about anything. Even Clinton ordered actions right and left
without consulting Congress.
That said, you can't have much of a discussion about anything when
one side is running around screaming that the sky is falling every time
anybody brings the subject up. Redefining the word "torture" and then
using pre-redefinition examples when accusing the Bushies of doing it
is not just disingenuous in the extreme, it's downright dishonest, and
it doesn't create "discussion." It just makes lots of very reasonable
people stop listening to you once they've caught on to what you've
done.
The world has CHANGED. We have to live with the changes, not
with a bag over our head refusing to budge and pretending that it's
still 1942.
Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com
Lynn allen
> I keep hearing about the war on terror, but I know of no country
> called "Terror".
After the recent tightening of airline security, forbidding carry-on
items including water, I saw it referred to as "The War on Moisture."
snerk.
I knew we were at war the instant my husband turned on the TV the
morning of 9/11. I knew we'd been attacked, and that there had to be a
response this time. Attack and counter-attack...that's pretty much the
definition of war.
The war on Terror is a stupid name, as you point out. It smacks way too
much of the War on Poverty (how's that going?) and the War on Drugs (I
think drugs are winning). But no government in recent history gets
anywhere without a catchy slogan.
Much of what the Bush administration is regrettable, and some
reprehensible. But much has also been utter necessity, and would have
been done the same under ANY administration.
I really hope we're not fighting Islam, the religion. What we should
fight is radical Islamists who interpret religious texts in ways that
would promote their own power and dominance. I'd far rather see a War
against Intolerance, or a War on Opression and Ignorance. Those would be
wars worth winning.
Lymaree
Annie C
"Jr@Ease" <do.not.s...@this.address> wrote in message
news:8t3dj2p870o21t31k...@4ax.com...
Absolutely, John. Could not agree with you more. Thanks for stating that so
clearly.
Did you see today's Boston Globe editorial?
http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=162864&srvc=home
"The new law will govern the trials of some of the world's masterminds of
terror. But in limiting their rights we run an ongoing risk of losing sight
of that which has always set us apart as a nation of laws."
Amen.
Annie
ps And it NOT just those who are picked up behind 'enemy lines.".. Who's
to say it could not be any one of us, the way this new '"law'. seems to be
written.
What in the hell's happening to my country?
Pogonip
>
> As to imprisoning them indefininately w/out trial--so? They're
> not criminal defendants. They've been picked up behind enemy lines in a
> war, and historically, those people get sorted out after the war is
> over, they don't usually get trials and lawyers. Not even with full
> prisoner of war status under the GCs do they get lawyers and trials
> while the war is still going on.
>
>
> http://www.janehaddam.com
>
Behind enemy lines, without evidence to present, so if a person is
picked up in an airport, in Boston or Chicago, for instance, and no
proof of any kind is required to substantiate their detention, what is
to prevent picking up anyone at all? What if they, like the unfortunate
Canadian citizen, turns out not to be an "enemy" after all? Isn't this
all just a little bit fast and loose?
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
Hurricane7
"war on terrorism". I am glad you posted.
I think we should be far more worried about nukes in Korea
Patricia
the neighbour north of the 49th
[to email remove the knot]
"Jr@Ease" <do.not.s...@this.address> wrote in message
news:8t3dj2p870o21t31k...@4ax.com...
Catherine Thompson
>
> But at the moment, there's not a shred of actual, verifiable
>evidence that Bush and Company have tortured anybody nor does anything
>in this act allow torture.
>
>
No, Bush & Co. get third parties to do their torturing for them.
I have one name for you: Maher Arar.
Catherine
>
>
Hurricane7
"Jane" <Jane...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161209896....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> If we are at war with terrorists, why didn't we declare it back in 72
>> after Munich? Or in the 80's when we lost all those marines in
>> Lebanon? Or at least when terrorists tried to blow up the WTC in 96?
>
> You're absolutely right. We should have responded then. If we
> had, 9/11 would never have happened. But we didn't. Better late than
> never.
>
> That's said, I think it's perfectly obvious why we didn't respond
> then and we have responded now. The first two other cases you're
> listing took place OFF American soil. The 96 attack was minor and
> largely unsuccessful. 9/11 not only happened here, it was a major
> hit, and at least part of it (think of the Pentagon) was a fairly
> convention act of war on its own.
Really I think this is a bit of war and fearmongering
> First, we didn't invade Iraq "peremptorily." We were a signatory
> to a treaty that said that if Saddam did not allow full inspections
> exactly the way the UN wanted them, then any of the participating
> countries could (or the UN could) reinvade.
When "you" did invade Irag it was to look for weapons of mass
destruction...clearly none were found (and I do believe that sometimes where
there is fuel...there is fire) but to declare war was wrong.
I am beginning to think (and it is my own simplistic view I might add) that
the unrest between America and Iraq will be almost as neverending as the
quest for peace in the middleeast
>
> Warfare changes. It has changed. We have to fight in this war,
> with the techniques that will work now, not in the last one.
War fought in face to face combat does not change..only the policy makers
can supply bigger and better weapons...but the lose is still in human
lives...whether they fought in WW1, WW2, the Falklands only difference is in
the number of men lost. Genocide is genocide we just perfect the method of
validating it to suit ourselves.
>
>
> The world has CHANGED. We have to live with the changes, not
> with a bag over our head refusing to budge and pretending that it's
> still 1942.
but in many ways remains the same...we are still people populating a
planet..in fact more people than ever before and we need to learn to live
together without nukes and war...simplistic I know but hey that's just me
Sorry I read this thread
I apologize if it hurts anyones sensibilities but this whole Iraq situation
gets worse not better and I do not see anyway out of it...no one wants to
lose any face.
Patricia
Hurricane7
reports are that he will be seeking compensation some way
Patricia
--
[to email remove the knot]
"Catherine Thompson" <cat...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4536...@news.bnb-lp.com...
Jr@Ease
-0700), while Jane Pondered, Weak and Weary:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I keep wondering...are we "at war?
>
> Yes. In fact, the US Congress authorized both the actions that
>put us at war.
>
> If so, who are we at war with?
>
> With two of the states (Afghanistan and Iraq) who supported
>Pan-Islamism.
Bush declared the war in Iraq over back in May of 2003 (remember
"Mission Accomplished" from our chief top gunner?) Ever since we've
been maintaining a defensive posture. We are not waging war on anyone.
And Afghanistan is now headed by a government which we are friendly
with, indeed we support. So we are not at war with that country
either. We may be conducting warlike activities in that country with
the criminal elements that were behind 9/11, but I still don't see
where we are at war to the point that the recent legislation is
necessary. Those prisoners are being detained from a war that's over.
>>
>> I keep hearing about the war on terror, but I know of no country
>> called "Terror".
>
> Yes. It's a stupid phrase, and not accurate. See above.
Stupid or otherwise, when Bush gets on TV and explains to us that we
are at war with Pan-Islamism (meaning, I presume, a movement to unite
Muslims everywhere against non-Muslims - which sounds suspiciously
like a war against Islam itself) then I might start to take him and
his administration more seriously. Frankly, your post is the first
time I've heard the phrase used in conjunction with what we are doing.
I've never heard it from my government.
>
>
>Yes, we've attacked Iraq, but we're presently not at
>> war with Iraq.
>
>We are, however, most certainly at war IN Iraq.
More like an occupation, with the occupied folks sniping at us. Yes,
our troops are dying, but I still have a problem calling it a war for
purposes of that legislation.
>
>
> Nor are we at war with Afghanistan. We have troops
>> there, presumably looking for al-Qaeda, and helping to prop up the
>> government we put there, but we're not at war.
>
> Yes, in fact, we are at war. The war doesn't stop just because
>we're winning, only once we've won.
The guy that signed that legislation said we won. I think it's a bit
disingenuous to say we won, and then say we need new, sweeping
legislation to help us win (again?)
>
>>
>> Are not most, if not all, of the detainees in Gitmo from our "war"
>> with Afghanistan? Which is now over.
>
> No, it's not. Pan-Islamism operates out of Afghanistan even now,
>and the war will only be over when the country is secured. It's
>nowhere near that.
See above. When did we declare war on Pan-Islamism?
>
>>
>> Or else are they not high leaders of al-Qaeda picked up in raids in
>> Pakistan (and elsewhere - who knows where?), another country we are
>> not at war with?
>
> The war, however, is directed at Pan-Islamism. You're letting
>yourself get tangled in anachronisms. War changes. It's different in
>different periods. You seem to be saying "THIS war isn't like the wars
>I'm used to, so it isn't really war." But it is.
No, I said I was being legalistic, but for a reason. I also said that
if we are going to go to war against Islam (or Pan-Islamism) we should
do it honestly, out in the open, with the nation understanding,
discussing and deciding on the best way to do it, not with a
president, who doesn't play it straight with the people who supposedly
elected him, telling us that this is a war against terror, and this is
the only way to conduct it.
>
> Pan-Islamism isn't just an "ideology." It's a confederation of
>groups, most of them armed, all getting significant financial and
>material help from more conventional states, and the states and the
>groups are united in a single goal--commitment to and defense of the
>Umma, the worldwide community of Muslims, to whom Muslims owe their
>allegiance and their obedience no matter where they live or what
>passports they hold.
That's scary. Ok, let's fight that. Best way to do that, IMHO, is to
attack and conquer Saudi Arabia. That's where the money is. That's
were the true believers originate from. What the hell are we doing in
Iraq?
>
>>
>> If we are at war with terrorists, why didn't we declare it back in 72
>> after Munich? Or in the 80's when we lost all those marines in
>> Lebanon? Or at least when terrorists tried to blow up the WTC in 96?
>
> You're absolutely right. We should have responded then. If we
>had, 9/11 would never have happened. But we didn't. Better late than
>never.
That's debatable. If we had declared war in 1972, 9/11 would not have
occurred. Hmmmm. Or maybe it would have occurred on September 11,
1973.
>
> That's said, I think it's perfectly obvious why we didn't respond
>then and we have responded now. The first two other cases you're
>listing took place OFF American soil. The 96 attack was minor and
>largely unsuccessful. 9/11 not only happened here, it was a major
>hit, and at least part of it (think of the Pentagon) was a fairly
>convention act of war on its own.
No. It's an extreme criminal act. War is perpetrated by countries, not
individual criminals. And even if one can show that Muslim countries
funneled money to al-Qaeda, thereby tying those countries to 9/11,
it's pretty much accepted that Iraq was not one of those countries. We
should have invaded Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or Eqypt.
>>
>> I know the above sounds legalistic, but aren't we a country of laws?
>> Should we be making it up as we go along? It seems that's what we are
>> doing. Attacking sovereign nations peremptorily, then using the
>> resulting hostilities as an excuse to justify treating people we don't
>> like as prisoners of war. Then changing our laws retroactively to make
>> it all legal.
>
> I don't think that's what happened.
>
> First, we didn't invade Iraq "peremptorily."
Whoa. Didn't Bush advance the argument that because there were WMD's
in Iraq, that we were justified in a preemptive attack? (I meant
preemptive - damned spell check changed it.)
>We were a signatory
>to a treaty that said that if Saddam did not allow full inspections
>exactly the way the UN wanted them, then any of the participating
>countries could (or the UN could) reinvade.
But he did, didn't he? Bush just said since he wouldn't show us the
WMD's, he was lying, so we should attack. Circular reasoning at its
best, with Iraq between a Iraq and a hard place. :)
>
> I think it's a valid question as to whether it made any sense to
>do that on our own, or more or less os, but it isn't anything like
>"peremptorily" and it isn't making it up as we go along.
I'm not convinced.
>
> Second, how exactly do you think the US, or anybody else, should
>go about making rules and regulations for fundamental changes that we
>cannot know are happening? You're like the head of the British Army in
>the American Revolutionary War--God damn it! REAL wars are fought with
>soldiers in formation, and we don't care what these ignorant colonials
>are doing hiding behind trees.
Well, not really. That wasn't my original point. I simply questioned
whether using the bogeyman of a war on terror that really doesn't
exist justified what's going on. I do think that we need to change our
way of thinking about how to deal with this type of violence,and, yes,
terror, but I'm not convinced that this new legislation is the way to
go, given the fiction being used to justify it. I'm all for
flexibility, but this is a form of flexibility that I fear will bite
us on the ass some day.
>
> Warfare changes. It has changed. We have to fight in this war,
>with the techniques that will work now, not in the last one.
>
>> Let's call a spade a spade. If we are at war with anyone, it's a war
>> against Islam.
>
> See above.
>
> No, it's not "Islam."
>
>
>We are fighting an idealogy, a religion, that clashes
>> mightily with ours.
>
> The problem isn't that the ideology clases with ours, but what it
>is that side wants--control over any country in which Muslims are a
>majority, and accommodations from other countries that enforce Shari'a
>law on Muslims even if it contradicts the law of the country involved.
>
> They're a good ways to getting it, too. In Britian, Muslim
>defendants in criminal trials have succeeded in getting Jews thrown off
>juries, women thrown off juries, even (in one case) a jury restricted
>to Muslims. The UK welfare system has started to make
>"accommodations" to polygamy. In France and Sweden, honor killings
>go uninvestigated and unprosecuted. And that's a very small sample of
>what has become a very large problem.
Change is slow. They're also having a big debate in England about the
use of Muslim women's veils. I really think that eventually reason
will win out. It usually does. This whole mess has made us look
inwardly into what we used to think was very PC, so as to avoid
insulting people of faith. That is changing.
>
>
> Surely, the fight needs to be fought. The
>> terrorists are just the warriors fighting for their religion.
>
> That's not what they're fighting for.
>
>But
>> calling this a war on terror is just a smoke screen.
>
> No. It's just bad phrasing.
Purposely bad phrasing, IMO.
>
>
> It's being used
>> as an excuse to shore up power in our own country. If a war against
>> religion requires us to change the rules a bit, let's do it with a
>> national discussion and scrutiny based on the reality of the
>> situation, not this trumped up cockamamie war on terrorism.
>
> But we HAVE HAD such a discussion--one thing you have to give the
>Bushies, they've been VERY careful to go to Congress and ask permission
>for just about anything. Even Clinton ordered actions right and left
>without consulting Congress.
Another reason why the all three branches of government should be
different parties. Bush proposed this last bit of wonderful
legislation on Sept 6, and by Oct 17, he's signing it into law. Lot of
consideration and national discussion went into that.
>
> That said, you can't have much of a discussion about anything when
>one side is running around screaming that the sky is falling every time
>anybody brings the subject up. Redefining the word "torture" and then
>using pre-redefinition examples when accusing the Bushies of doing it
>is not just disingenuous in the extreme, it's downright dishonest, and
>it doesn't create "discussion." It just makes lots of very reasonable
>people stop listening to you once they've caught on to what you've
>done.
>
> The world has CHANGED. We have to live with the changes, not
>with a bag over our head refusing to budge and pretending that it's
>still 1942.
>
> Jane Haddam
>http://www.janehaddam.com
John P
Francis A. Miniter
> Once Upon a Midnight Dreary, While Jane Pondered, Weak and Weary, Over
> Many a Quaint and Curious Forgotten Post, and then wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>As to imprisoning them indefininately w/out trial--so? They're
>>not criminal defendants. They've been picked up behind enemy lines in a
>>war, and historically, those people get sorted out after the war is
>>over, they don't usually get trials and lawyers.
>
>
> I keep wondering...are we "at war"? If so, who are we at war with?
>
In view of the requirement that Congress authorize a war, I will look at the
actions of that body.
As to Afghanistan, the authority came in Public Law 107-40, passed on September
18, 2001,
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html
which authorized the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible
for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President
the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he
determined "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the September 11th
attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. On the basis of this and the
refusal of the Taliban government to turn over Osama bin Laden after
acknowledging he was there, the alliance,m consisting of a substantial majority
of the world's nations, attacked.
The authorization that resulted in the war against Iraq came in Public Law
107-243, signed on October 16, 2002.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national
security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
It was based on the following recitations:
1. Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including
interference with weapons inspectors [true, except that after this law was
passed, Iraq allowed the inspecvtors back in and they were doiong their work
when the US announced it would invade]
2. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such
weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and
international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region" [false]
3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population" [true, but not a basis
in international law to invade a country]
4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction
against other nations and its own people" [true in part (chemical weapons on its
own people), false in part (all the rest)]
5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993
assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, [apparently true]
and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991
Gulf War [true]
6. Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq" [false]
7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations [false]
8. Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for
use against the United States [false]
9. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists
and those who aided or harbored them [Iraq never harbored any 9/11 terrorists,
so false]
As a prerequisite to action, the law required that the President report to
Congress at least 48 hours before any action is taken that:
" (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
" (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Considering that the UN inspectors were in and doing their job, the presidential
determination was very questionable.
Francis A. Miniter
Crowfoot
"Jr@Ease" <do.not.s...@this.address> wrote:
Agreed. The party in power is trying to turn us into a country of
laws which only ordinary citizens must obey, leaving "the authorities"
free to decide at any given moment what a troublesome law does or
does not mean, without recourse to a court (as with the Bush
creature's recent addenda to laws he signed stipulating that he gets
to decide things like what "torture" means if and as it suits Him.
Oh, sorry: him.
Suzy
Crowfoot
> > with Afghanistan? Which is now over.
>
> No, it's not. Pan-Islamism operates out of Afghanistan even now,
> and the war will only be over when the country is secured. It's
> nowhere near that.
"Pan-Islamism" is a handy creation of the Bushites so that they will
*never* have to declare their "war" over (because there will always
be some doggone Islamic people *somewhere* in the world, and
under the rules of "Pan-Islamism" they will have to be our sworn
enemies). And even if all muslims suddenly became miraculously
dead or converted, "we" could always keep on *saying* there were
some left and maintain a nice, politically and economically profitable
"war" even without them (just as some Europeans manage to
maintain anti-Semitism without any Jews). After all, we started out by
saying there were WMD in Iraq, though there weren't. Even now
that we know this, American kids and Iraqis of all ages continue
being killed over there with no end in sight.
So when do *you* think the "war" against "Pan-Islamism" will be
over, Jane?
Suzy
Jane
Crowfoot wrote:
>
> "Pan-Islamism" is a handy creation of the Bushites
Really?
Boy, those Bushies are good. Especially since the term
Pan-Islamism, with the definition given in my post, was coined by
scholars in the 1970s, before the first Bush had even been vice
president.
The phenomenon has been around for a while, and recognized for
a while, and long before even the first Bush administration.
After all, we started out by
> saying there were WMD in Iraq, though there weren't.
Blah, blah, blah.
You know, you people keep repeating that so often, I almost think
you've deluded yourself into thinking it makes sense.
WE didn't say there were WMDs--EVERYBODY did. The British, the
French, the Germans--it was accepted pretty much across the board that
SH had them since SH kept insisting like acting as if he had them.
Even now
> that we know this, American kids and Iraqis of all ages continue
> being killed over there with no end in sight.
Something like 244,000 Americans died in WWII, and in early 1945
there was no end in sight. Over 50,000 died in Vietnam. This only
makes sense as an argument if you think that no war should ever be
fought under any circumstances.
I don 't.
>
> So when do *you* think the "war" against "Pan-Islamism" will be
> over, Jane?
When there has been not one single Muslim suicide bombing
anywhere, including Israel, for one full year.
When there have been no violent attacks--no embassy bombings, no
kidnappings, no beheadings--of Westerners by Islamists for one year.
When the Iraqs can vote, hold public office, and otherwise
participate in their government without having to fear being blown to
smithereems by Islamofascist nutcases screaming "Democracy is not
Muslim!"
When all the Arab states publicly and materially accept the
continued existence of the state of Israel.
When no writer, actor, filmmaker, or editor anywhere in the
non-Muslim world has to go into hiding under police protection because
he said something about Islam the Islamofascists don't like.
When Muslim women living in Western countries can go without the
veil, hold public office, vote and date non-Muslim men without having
to fear being beaten to a pulp by more-Muslim-than-thou neighbors.
Start there.
I really don't understand you people. Here is a culture that
says, out loud, that its entire purpose in existing is to bring
YOU--you, not somebody in Saudi Arabia--under laws that would have you
whipped till the skin came off your back for the crime of driving while
female, crushed under rocks for the crime of being homosexual,
judicially murdered for the crime of being a rape victim...but that?
That's okay. It's trivial.
It's George W. Bush you REALLY have to be worried about.
Ooooh. He might listen in to your phone conversations. Now, that
REALLY being oppressed.
The Bushies didn't invent Pan-Islamism, Suzy. LISTEN to what
people like Bin Ladin, Iqbal Sacranie, etc, actually say. Then take
them at their word.
Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com
Jane
Jr@Ease wrote:
> Bush declared the war in Iraq over back in May of 2003 (remember
> "Mission Accomplished" from our chief top gunner?) Ever since we've
> been maintaining a defensive posture. We are not waging war on anyone.
Yes, we are. Mission accomplished or not, playing defense or
offense, the war is (obviously) not over.
>
> And Afghanistan is now headed by a government which we are friendly
> with, indeed we support. So we are not at war with that country
> either. We may be conducting warlike activities in that country with
> the criminal elements that were behind 9/11, but I still don't see
> where we are at war to the point that the recent legislation is
> necessary. Those prisoners are being detained from a war that's over.
No, the war is not over--Afghanistan may now have a "friendly"
government, but it is not secured.
And we're not fighting Iraq or Afghanistan in discreet,
hermetically sealed conflicts. We're fighting a war on Pan-Islamism,
which uses states but is not itself a state.
>
> Stupid or otherwise, when Bush gets on TV and explains to us that we
> are at war with Pan-Islamism (meaning, I presume, a movement to unite
> Muslims everywhere against non-Muslims - which sounds suspiciously
> like a war against Islam itself) then I might start to take him and
> his administration more seriously. Frankly, your post is the first
> time I've heard the phrase used in conjunction with what we are doing.
> I've never heard it from my government.
Well, you've heard the term Islamofascism, which means exactly the
same thing. And I'm sure Bush used that one, because a ton of people
had a fit when he did.
Pan Islamism isn't a movement to united Muslims everywhere against
non-Muslims. It is a movement to defend and extend the influence and
power of the Umma, the worldwide Muslim community, so that no Muslim
state is ruled by nonMuslims and so that Muslims living in nonMuslims
states live IN those states according to Shari'a law for their own
communities and obeissance for the dhimmi (non-Muslim) native
populations.
> More like an occupation, with the occupied folks sniping at us. Yes,
> our troops are dying, but I still have a problem calling it a war for
> purposes of that legislation.
I don't.
> The guy that signed that legislation said we won. I think it's a bit
> disingenuous to say we won, and then say we need new, sweeping
> legislation to help us win (again?)
>
Bush can say what he wants, and the mission accomplished thing
was egregiously idiotic, but whether we've won or not is a matter of
fact. And as a matter of fact, we have not (yet) won and the war is
ongoing.
> See above. When did we declare war on Pan-Islamism?
Late on the evening of September 11, 2001.
> > Pan-Islamism isn't just an "ideology." It's a confederation of
> >groups, most of them armed, all getting significant financial and
> >material help from more conventional states, and the states and the
> >groups are united in a single goal--commitment to and defense of the
> >Umma, the worldwide community of Muslims, to whom Muslims owe their
> >allegiance and their obedience no matter where they live or what
> >passports they hold.
>
> That's scary.
Interesting. I don't find it scary at all. It infuriates me.
Ok, let's fight that. Best way to do that, IMHO, is to
> attack and conquer Saudi Arabia. That's where the money is. That's
> were the true believers originate from. What the hell are we doing in
> Iraq?
Let me try this one more time.
The neoconservative argument for going to war is this: a lot of
the Pan-Islamic violence in the world is driven by the perception among
Pan-Islamists and the populations in which they live that the West is
weak--that the West WILL NOT strike back if they are attacked, or if
the do they will do so only symbollically, not seriously.
The two greatest needs at the moment, then, are a) to continue to
demonstrate Muslim strength against Western weakness (to attack and
demonstrate that it results in no serious counterattack) and b) to bide
time for states friendly to the Pan-Islamic cause, and Pan-Islamic
groups themselves, to gain strength in numbers and arms.
Iraq invaded Kuwait. This led to a surprise--trust me, SH was
surprised--when the UN put together a coalition, invaded, and drove the
Iraqis back. The UN, however, did NOT invade Iraq and depose Saddam.
Instead, it signed treaties with SH that set down conditions for his
continuing in power, one of which was that he open up his government,
military, and country to inspections by the UN.
In 1991, SH threw the inspectors out of the country.
At that point, the UN should have put another coalition together,
invaded Iraq and deposed SH--after all, that is what it's own treaties
said it would do if SH threw the inspectors out of the country.
The UN, however, did no such thing. It hemmed and hawed. It set
up sanctions that its members then proceeded to violate on a massive
scale--try googling France and oil-for-food scandal.
So the Pan-Islamists got to sit back and go, See? They won't
actually DO anything. They've got a lot of arms, and a lot of stuff,
but they're soft, they're cowards. Draw a little blood and they run.
And every day after the inspectors were thrown out and SH
remained in power was a day where Iraq was living proof that
Pan-Islamic violence against Western targets would NOT be met with
enough force to make any difference.
Quite frankly, I think that's a perfectly valid argument. I'm
just not sure that the problem caused by the situation could be solved
by our going in on our own.
But I don't have much sympathy for Francis's argument at "SH let
the inspectors back in!"
Because that was really beside the point, as was whether he actually
had WMDs or not. One of the things the Arab nations have been very
good at--and so has North Korea--is setting up situations where they
buy time until they can present the rest of us with a fait accompli.
Showing the Pan-Islamists that their friendly states can stall long
enough to get anything isn't a great idea, either.
>
> That's debatable. If we had declared war in 1972, 9/11 would not have
> occurred. Hmmmm. Or maybe it would have occurred on September 11,
> 1973.
Actually, I didn't say declare war. I said responded. And you
WILL increase attacks against you if you fight back. But you must
still fight back. In the long run, you're better off if you do.
>
> No. It's an extreme criminal act. War is perpetrated by countries,
No. War USED TO BE perpetrated by countries. But Pan-Islamism
does not recognize the sovereignty of states, even Islamic
fundamentalist theocratic states. It sees the operating entity to be
the Umma, and organizations, only loosely confederated, acting on
behalf of the Umma.
not
> individual criminals.
But the Pan-Islamists aren't "individual criminals," either.
They're more like militias, and they're very adept at coordinating
their activities when they want to. For instance, on March 6, 2004 (I
should check the date. I wrote it down but what I wrote it on isn't
here) there were virtually identical firebomb attacks on 14 synagogues
spanning 7 French, 3 Dutch, and 2 German cities. They couldn't have
all been carried out by any one group, since no one group has a
presence in all those places.
And even if one can show that Muslim countries
> funneled money to al-Qaeda, thereby tying those countries to 9/11,
> it's pretty much accepted that Iraq was not one of those countries. We
> should have invaded Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or Eqypt.
See above. The states literally don't matter. They're window
dressing. Although I'm all for going after Syria and Pakistan. And
especially Iran.
> >
> > First, we didn't invade Iraq "peremptorily."
>
> Whoa. Didn't Bush advance the argument that because there were WMD's
> in Iraq, that we were justified in a preemptive attack? (I meant
> preemptive - damned spell check changed it.)
Yeah, that was the problem. You SAID peremptorially, and that
doesn't mean the same thing as pre-emptive.
>
> >We were a signatory
> >to a treaty that said that if Saddam did not allow full inspections
> >exactly the way the UN wanted them, then any of the participating
> >countries could (or the UN could) reinvade.
>
> But he did, didn't he? Bush just said since he wouldn't show us the
> WMD's, he was lying, so we should attack.
No, he didn't. He threw the inspectors out in 1991. THAT'S when
we (and the UN) should have reinvaded, and from that point on any of
the signatories to that treaty had the right to reinvade.
> Well, not really. That wasn't my original point. I simply questioned
> whether using the bogeyman of a war on terror
I don't think the war on terror is a boogeyman.
that really doesn't
> exist justified what's going on. I do think that we need to change our
> way of thinking about how to deal with this type of violence,and, yes,
> terror, but I'm not convinced that this new legislation is the way to
> go, given the fiction being used to justify it. I'm all for
> flexibility, but this is a form of flexibility that I fear will bite
> us on the ass some day.
But I'm not sure it's the right thing, either. I'm only sure that
it isn't the first step to fascism, or the end of the America we knew,
or any of that.
> >
> > They're a good ways to getting it, too. In Britian, Muslim
> >defendants in criminal trials have succeeded in getting Jews thrown off
> >juries, women thrown off juries, even (in one case) a jury restricted
> >to Muslims. The UK welfare system has started to make
> >"accommodations" to polygamy. In France and Sweden, honor killings
> >go uninvestigated and unprosecuted. And that's a very small sample of
> >what has become a very large problem.
> >But
> >> calling this a war on terror is just a smoke screen.
> >
> > No. It's just bad phrasing.
>
> Purposely bad phrasing, IMO.
Nah. I think it's really interesting that so many of you declare
that Bush is stupid, or a moron, and at the same time think he's
practically a Macchiavelli in the White House.
The Bushies are TERRIBLE at getting their message across when
they're not talking to the party faithful. They've turned PR
incompetence into something like an art form.
For instance--I outlined the neocon argument for invading Iraq
above. It's a decent argument. It's a LOT better than worrying about
WMDs or bringing democracy to the Middle East or preemptive strikes or
any of the rest of it.
The neocons had been making that argument for six or seven years
before the 2000 election. DURING the election I read several decent
articles on the issue.
Then--poof. Sound bites. Crap. And yet it's almost certain
that we wouldn't be at war in Iraq except for that argument. In fact,
it's probably the real reason we went.
They don't trust the country to be able to follow the reasoning.
Which is deplorable.
Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com
Mark Alan Miller
>
> Crowfoot wrote:
> After all, we started out by
> > saying there were WMD in Iraq, though there weren't.
>
> Blah, blah, blah.
>
> You know, you people keep repeating that so often, I almost think
> you've deluded yourself into thinking it makes sense.
>
> WE didn't say there were WMDs--EVERYBODY did. The British, the
> French, the Germans--it was accepted pretty much across the board that
> SH had them since SH kept insisting like acting as if he had them.
This is oversimplifying, Jane. It was never more than a suspicion, and a
very indefinite one. No one outside of intelligence agencies had any
conrete information on what these WMD might be or where and doubt as to
their existence was widespread. SH was/is a weasel and his failure to
comply with one UN requirement after another was ample justification for
invading. Not that I think we should have.
Mark Alan Miller
Mary
Jane wrote:
> Jr@Ease wrote:
> > Bush declared the war in Iraq over back in May of 2003 (remember
> > "Mission Accomplished" from our chief top gunner?) Ever since we've
> > been maintaining a defensive posture. We are not waging war on anyone.
>
> Yes, we are. Mission accomplished or not, playing defense or
> offense, the war is (obviously) not over.
True. I do think that Bush's "Mission Accomplished" schtick was a bad
mistake. It looked to me as though it were aimed at exuding optimism,
blah blah, but instead he came off as a cocky little twerp - a
noncombatant at that - who liked to dress up in uniforms and strut
around.
I can see both your point and John's, though. We're waging the war
(which, as you say, is not over) in Iraq badly. In football terms,
we're not playing to win, we're playing not to lose. Didn't we learn
that lesson in Vietnam?
(snippity)
> And we're not fighting Iraq or Afghanistan in discreet,
> hermetically sealed conflicts. We're fighting a war on Pan-Islamism,
> which uses states but is not itself a state.
Okay, I agree with you there, but I wonder whether this is a war that
can be won. Isn't it awfully amorphous?
(Snippity2)
> Pan Islamism isn't a movement to united Muslims everywhere against
> non-Muslims. It is a movement to defend and extend the influence and
> power of the Umma, the worldwide Muslim community, so that no Muslim
> state is ruled by nonMuslims and so that Muslims living in nonMuslims
> states live IN those states according to Shari'a law for their own
> communities and obeissance for the dhimmi (non-Muslim) native
> populations.
And I have much more of a problem with that than I do with WMDs.
But how does Iraq tie into this? Isn't it true that Saddam Hussein was
actually against the Islamists and didn't support them? How can we tie
an invasion of Iraq to the terrorism being perpetrated by the
Pan-Islamicists?
(snippity again)
> > See above. When did we declare war on Pan-Islamism?
>
>
> Late on the evening of September 11, 2001.
And that made sense in terms of why we invaded Afghanistan. But
where's the connection to Iraq?
> > > Pan-Islamism isn't just an "ideology." It's a confederation of
> > >groups, most of them armed, all getting significant financial and
> > >material help from more conventional states, and the states and the
> > >groups are united in a single goal--commitment to and defense of the
> > >Umma, the worldwide community of Muslims, to whom Muslims owe their
> > >allegiance and their obedience no matter where they live or what
> > >passports they hold.
> >
> > That's scary.
>
> Interesting. I don't find it scary at all. It infuriates me.
It's infuriating until they begin to succeed, and then it's scary.
> Ok, let's fight that. Best way to do that, IMHO, is to
> > attack and conquer Saudi Arabia. That's where the money is. That's
> > were the true believers originate from. What the hell are we doing in
> > Iraq?
>
> Let me try this one more time.
I know you're talking to John, but I have some trouble following this
too, so please bear with me.
> The neoconservative argument for going to war is this: a lot of
> the Pan-Islamic violence in the world is driven by the perception among
> Pan-Islamists and the populations in which they live that the West is
> weak--that the West WILL NOT strike back if they are attacked, or if
> the do they will do so only symbollically, not seriously.
>
> The two greatest needs at the moment, then, are a) to continue to
> demonstrate Muslim strength against Western weakness (to attack and
> demonstrate that it results in no serious counterattack) and b) to bide
> time for states friendly to the Pan-Islamic cause, and Pan-Islamic
> groups themselves, to gain strength in numbers and arms.
>
> Iraq invaded Kuwait. This led to a surprise--trust me, SH was
> surprised--when the UN put together a coalition, invaded, and drove the
> Iraqis back. The UN, however, did NOT invade Iraq and depose Saddam.
> Instead, it signed treaties with SH that set down conditions for his
> continuing in power, one of which was that he open up his government,
> military, and country to inspections by the UN.
They're still conflating Pan-Islamism and Iraq, though Iraq didn't
support Pan-Islamism.
Unless the argument is that to show weakness to ANYONE is to be
avoided?
> In 1991, SH threw the inspectors out of the country.
>
> At that point, the UN should have put another coalition together,
> invaded Iraq and deposed SH--after all, that is what it's own treaties
> said it would do if SH threw the inspectors out of the country.
>
> The UN, however, did no such thing. It hemmed and hawed. It set
> up sanctions that its members then proceeded to violate on a massive
> scale--try googling France and oil-for-food scandal.
>
> So the Pan-Islamists got to sit back and go, See? They won't
> actually DO anything. They've got a lot of arms, and a lot of stuff,
> but they're soft, they're cowards. Draw a little blood and they run.
>
> And every day after the inspectors were thrown out and SH
> remained in power was a day where Iraq was living proof that
> Pan-Islamic violence against Western targets would NOT be met with
> enough force to make any difference.
>
> Quite frankly, I think that's a perfectly valid argument. I'm
> just not sure that the problem caused by the situation could be solved
> by our going in on our own.
Maybe, but it also puts us in the position of having to be the
tough-ass kid on the block with virtually everyone who says boo to us.
How far would you really want to run with that?
> But I don't have much sympathy for Francis's argument at "SH let
> the inspectors back in!"
> Because that was really beside the point, as was whether he actually
> had WMDs or not. One of the things the Arab nations have been very
> good at--and so has North Korea--is setting up situations where they
> buy time until they can present the rest of us with a fait accompli.
> Showing the Pan-Islamists that their friendly states can stall long
> enough to get anything isn't a great idea, either.
If you consider Iraq friendly to the Pan-Islamists, yes. From what
I've read, though, that's more true now than it was under SH.
(snip)
> > No. It's an extreme criminal act. War is perpetrated by countries,
>
> No. War USED TO BE perpetrated by countries. But Pan-Islamism
> does not recognize the sovereignty of states, even Islamic
> fundamentalist theocratic states. It sees the operating entity to be
> the Umma, and organizations, only loosely confederated, acting on
> behalf of the Umma.
That's what feels amorphous to me. How do you fight effectively
against a group of people who are everywhere and nowhere? Sure, we can
fight. It's the effective part that I'm wondering about.
> But the Pan-Islamists aren't "individual criminals," either.
> They're more like militias, and they're very adept at coordinating
> their activities when they want to. For instance, on March 6, 2004 (I
> should check the date. I wrote it down but what I wrote it on isn't
> here) there were virtually identical firebomb attacks on 14 synagogues
> spanning 7 French, 3 Dutch, and 2 German cities. They couldn't have
> all been carried out by any one group, since no one group has a
> presence in all those places.
(Snip)
> See above. The states literally don't matter. They're window
> dressing. Although I'm all for going after Syria and Pakistan. And
> especially Iran.
And Saudi Arabia.
(snip)
> > > No. It's just bad phrasing.
> >
> > Purposely bad phrasing, IMO.
>
> Nah. I think it's really interesting that so many of you declare
> that Bush is stupid, or a moron, and at the same time think he's
> practically a Macchiavelli in the White House.
>
> The Bushies are TERRIBLE at getting their message across when
> they're not talking to the party faithful. They've turned PR
> incompetence into something like an art form.
>
> For instance--I outlined the neocon argument for invading Iraq
> above. It's a decent argument. It's a LOT better than worrying about
> WMDs or bringing democracy to the Middle East or preemptive strikes or
> any of the rest of it.
>
> The neocons had been making that argument for six or seven years
> before the 2000 election. DURING the election I read several decent
> articles on the issue.
>
> Then--poof. Sound bites. Crap. And yet it's almost certain
> that we wouldn't be at war in Iraq except for that argument. In fact,
> it's probably the real reason we went.
>
> They don't trust the country to be able to follow the reasoning.
> Which is deplorable.
But perfectly in character. Bush really doesn't like people who
question his actions, or his motives. He wants to be above
questioning, but I think that the President is answerable to us all if
he's going to act in our names.
Mary
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
>vj found this in rec.arts.mystery, from "Annie C"
><cher...@NOSPAMARAMAmindspring.com> :
>
>]ps And it NOT just those who are picked up behind 'enemy lines.".. Who's
>]to say it could not be any one of us, the way this new '"law'. seems to be
>]written.
>
>BINGO!
>
>or
>
>POINT!
And there are two other points. The potential in that power is there
(and if he potential is there I can guarantee you it WILL be used)
Secondly, Assuming this is permissible (iffy, that, to me), since
we're making war against an idea as much (or more) than we are against
a real foe, there IS no end to it, which again means the US as we know
has ceased to exist, because there is now no limitation on that power.
And, if one is "disappeared" with no recourse to habeas corpus, etc.
how is said *un*person going to take his case before the SCOTUS to get
the law(s) struck down?
Remember, that act allows the chief executive to decide (with counsel,
one assumes) whether what he does or has done in his name is legal or
not. There is NO oversight.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
>vj found this in rec.arts.mystery, from "Jane" <Jane...@aol.com> :
>
>] Nah. I think it's really interesting that so many of you declare
>]that Bush is stupid, or a moron, and at the same time think he's
>]practically a Macchiavelli in the White House.
>
>he is an idiot. the string-controlling puppet masters not necessarily so.
You don't need to be smart to be Machiavellian - just paranoid, and
venal. And from where I sit, the shrub fits those categories. (and
yes, as vj says, he's "getting bad advice" at the very least)
Wesley Struebing
<min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote:
>Jr@Ease wrote:
>
>> Once Upon a Midnight Dreary, While Jane Pondered, Weak and Weary, Over
>> Many a Quaint and Curious Forgotten Post, and then wrote:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>As to imprisoning them indefininately w/out trial--so? They're
>>>not criminal defendants. They've been picked up behind enemy lines in a
>>>war, and historically, those people get sorted out after the war is
>>>over, they don't usually get trials and lawyers.
>>
>>
>> I keep wondering...are we "at war"? If so, who are we at war with?
>>
>
>In view of the requirement that Congress authorize a war, I will look at the
>actions of that body.
>
>
Congress ceded THAT authority to the Executive Branch long since.
Wesley Struebing
It may have been ample justification for a UN-sanctioned force to
invade(though I don't agree with that) - not essentially a uni-lateral
decision on the part of the US. Having the UK as our *other* main
partner is hardly a coalition (I'm quite certain that if Tony Blair
had told the shrub to go fly a kite, we would have invaded, anyway).
Where was the justification for us to turn schoolyard bully?
Jane
Wesley Struebing wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:56:49 GMT, "Mark Alan Miller"
>> >
> invade(though I don't agree with that) - not essentially a uni-lateral
> decision on the part of the US. Having the UK as our *other* main
> partner is hardly a coalition (I'm quite certain that if Tony Blair
> had told the shrub to go fly a kite, we would have invaded, anyway).
> Where was the justification for us to turn schoolyard bully?
>
I don't agree that we behaved like a schoolyard bully. By the
treaties, any of the coalition partners could have gone in alone, not
just us, although we were probably the only country with the resources
to do it.
But I think that not only was it ample justification from a
UN-sanctioned for to invade, but that the UN had a moral obligation to
invade, at once and without dithering, as soon as SH threw the
inspectors out.
After all, why should ANYBODY take the UN seriously (well, they
don't, anymore), if it doesn't do what it says it will do?
The failure of the UN to invade and despose SH in 91 has probably
caused more bloodshed, longterm, than anything we've done in
Afghanistan and Iraq. And it's made that body virtually useless in any
international conflict.
Of COURSE the Iranians are thumbing their noses at the UN, and NK,
too. They know they have nothing to worry about.
Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com
Jane
Mary wrote:
>
> Okay, I agree with you there, but I wonder whether this is a war that
> can be won. Isn't it awfully amorphous?
I don't think so, no.
>
> But how does Iraq tie into this? Isn't it true that Saddam Hussein was
> actually against the Islamists and didn't support them? How can we tie
> an invasion of Iraq to the terrorism being perpetrated by the
> Pan-Islamicists?
First, all the states have ambiguous relationships to
Pan-Islamism. NONE of them can afford to ignore it, but ALL of them
understand that the Pan-Islamists have no allegiance to any state.
They'll just as soon destroy a Muslim state as a non-Muslim one.
Second, SH did have ties to Pan-Islamism. For one thing, he was
one of the people who paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Third, the issue in Iraq according to the neocon analysis has to do
with credible threat--because we did NOT do what we said we would when
SH defied us, we are no longer credible when we threaten to do X if
somebody does Y.
> They're still conflating Pan-Islamism and Iraq, though Iraq didn't
> support Pan-Islamism.
>
> Unless the argument is that to show weakness to ANYONE is to be
> avoided?
Yes, exactly. Because weakness is provocative. What we
(meaning all of us, UN coaltion, etc) did and did not do in Iraq is
taken as an object lesson in what we will or will not do in future
situations. And the less likely it seems that we will retaliate, the
more likely it is that they will attack. And the less likely it is
that we will insist on the terms of treaties being carried out, the
more likely it is that they will think they can play us to gain time
and then present us with a fait accompli. Which is what Iran is doing
right this minute.
But, see above about SH and Pan-Islamism. The simple fact is that
no Muslim state can completely unhook itself from Pan-Islamism. It's
a well organized movement, and it's gotten to the point where it's very
extensive.
>
> Maybe, but it also puts us in the position of having to be the
> tough-ass kid on the block with virtually everyone who says boo to us.
> How far would you really want to run with that?
I don't know. I do know that I have no intention of wearing a
veil, and I don't want to see American writers and artists in hiding
because they've said something contrary to Islam.
>
> If you consider Iraq friendly to the Pan-Islamists, yes. From what
> I've read, though, that's more true now than it was under SH.
Again, no. SH's ties to Pan-Islamism are irrelevant. The
issue is the West's crediblity.
> > No. War USED TO BE perpetrated by countries. But Pan-Islamism
> > does not recognize the sovereignty of states, even Islamic
> > fundamentalist theocratic states. It sees the operating entity to be
> > the Umma, and organizations, only loosely confederated, acting on
> > behalf of the Umma.
>
> That's what feels amorphous to me. How do you fight effectively
> against a group of people who are everywhere and nowhere? Sure, we can
> fight. It's the effective part that I'm wondering about.
A fair amount of the problem is a matter of Western nations
enforcing their own laws. The British courts didn't HAVE to let a
Muslim defendant get a Jew-free jury. The French don't HAVE to let
the banlieus become no-go zones (and, in fact, in the one city where
the French police have just refused to put up with it--Marseilles--the
situation is nowhere near as bad).
What scares me is not the Pan-Islamists. I mean, let's face
it--these guys produce nothing, not even the weapons they use.
What scares me is that a fair hunk of Western Europe seems to be
increasingly in the grip of irrational self-loathing--so fixated on the
sins of the West that they're unable to see either their own cultures
or the Islamist ones in any kind of perspective. What scares me is
that a big chunk of Western civilization looks like it's intent on
committing suicide, that it would RATHER commit suicide that admit that
WC might be a good idea after all.
Okay, that's a bit undigested there. I'll think about it more
later.
Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com
Jr@Ease
-0700), while Jane Pondered, Weak and Weary:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, exactly. Because weakness is provocative. What we
>(meaning all of us, UN coaltion, etc) did and did not do in Iraq is
>taken as an object lesson in what we will or will not do in future
>situations. And the less likely it seems that we will retaliate, the
>more likely it is that they will attack. And the less likely it is
>that we will insist on the terms of treaties being carried out, the
>more likely it is that they will think they can play us to gain time
>and then present us with a fait accompli. Which is what Iran is doing
>right this minute.
OK. Assuming this to be true, that we cannot show weakness in the face
of provocation, if we had continued into Iraq in 1991 or whenever,
rather than stopping at the border, and gotten rid of SH, would we not
be in the same position we are now? Only a decade earlier?
Really, what is the solution to the problem you've posed? It seems
that the only solution is that we must destroy Pan-Islamism. It's us
or them. The way to do that is to destroy Islam. Invade Saudi Arabia,
and all the rest of the Islamic states, nuke them to rubble, whatever
it takes. That seems to be the only thing they will understand. If we
don't do that, anything else will be seen as weakness, and we're back
at square one.
Or is there another way, Jane?
John P
Chris F.A. Johnson
>
>
> Did you see today's Boston Globe editorial?
> http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=162864&srvc=home
> "The new law will govern the trials of some of the world's masterminds of
> terror. But in limiting their rights we run an ongoing risk of losing sight
> of that which has always set us apart as a nation of laws."
Last night (actually, not all that early this morning) I came across
this as I was reading Macaulay's History of England:
"...least of all should the law be strained for the purpose of
inflicting torture and destroying life. That Oates was a bad man
is not a sufficient excuse; for the guilty are almost always the
first to suffer those hardships which are afterwards used as
precedents against the innocent."
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Pogonip
Saddam _did_ have some pretty nasty weapons. We gave them to him. He
used them on his own people, when we wanted him to use them on the
Soviets. Apparently, he used them up.
Saddam, not a nice person by any stretch of the imagination, was enough
of a strongman to hold the Pan-Islamists at bay. Now that he is gone,
they have moved into the vacuum. This is not a step forward.
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
Jane
Jr@Ease wrote:
>
>
> OK. Assuming this to be true, that we cannot show weakness in the face
> of provocation, if we had continued into Iraq in 1991 or whenever,
> rather than stopping at the border, and gotten rid of SH, would we not
No. For two reasons.
First, because the other side was weaker then, so that their
ability to counter our response would have been proportionately less.
Second, because our response (best if it had been a fullthroated
UN response) would have entered into their future calculations.
Right now, we've got these people convinced that we're an easy
target. It's like being the little old lady on the nearly-deserted
subway train when the muggers step in. They don't go after the guy who
looks like he's been in the Marines, or even the woman who looks like
she might scream bloody murder, kick, and cause a fuss. They go for
easy targets. We've made ourselves look like an easy target.
>
> Really, what is the solution to the problem you've posed? It seems
> that the only solution is that we must destroy Pan-Islamism. It's us
> or them.
And this is different than the Allies and the Axis in
WWII...how? Don't you think the Pan-Islamists think that it's us or
them?
>>The way to do that is to destroy Islam.
No, not at all.
Invade Saudi Arabia,
> and all the rest of the Islamic states, nuke them to rubble, whatever
> it takes. That seems to be the only thing they will understand. If we
> don't do that, anything else will be seen as weakness, and we're back
> at square one.
>
> Or is there another way, Jane?
What you just did up there is called the fallacy of the excluded
middle. All or nothing!
Of course there's another way. There's no need to bomb them all
flat. If you understand that the actual objective is that we in our
Western societes be able to live in our Western societies by our own
laws and our own values, and that our people should be safe when
traveling between those societies and in those societies, you can see
at a glance that there's no need to totally destroy anything.
What you have to do is change the perception. You don't have to
bomb everybody flat, but you DO have to respond to EVERY incident of
violence. You have to do it quickly, and you have to do it without
compromise. Those responses don't all have to be wars, but most of
them will have to be military on at least some level.
It was the PERCEPTION that Bush would indeed bomb him flat that
got SH to allow the inspectors back in--before Bush provided a credible
threat, SH wasn't listening to "negotiations" and "dialogue." Why
should he? You know why the NKs want unilateral talks with the US?
Because we're the only ones they think might actually do something
about what they're doing (although, if I were them, I'd be worrying a
hell of a lot more about China).
The perception of strength saves lives. Lots of them. It
prevents you from having to destroy the entire Middle East. (Think of
the guy in Syria during the Lebanon thing--tell Bush we are not like
Saddam! We are eager to cooperate!)
On one level, there is the fact that we are indeed very strong.
We have the men, material, and resources to bomb them flat if we want
to (at least, the US does). On the other, there is the not entirely
wrong perception that we are philosophically and ideationally weak,
that we ourselves don't value the things we say we value, that we'll
give up rather than face hardship, that we no longer believe in the
intrinsic worth of our societies and cultures.
It's that second thing we have to change. In the short run,
there'll be more turmoil for a while. In the long run, Pan-Islamism
will slink back to where it came from, and it won't be our problem any
more, which is all we actually need.
Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com
Jane
vj wrote:
> vj found this in rec.arts.mystery, from "Chris F.A. Johnson"
> <cfajo...@gmail.com> :
>
> ] "...least of all should the law be strained for the purpose of
> ] inflicting torture and destroying life. That Oates was a bad man
> ] is not a sufficient excuse; for the guilty are almost always the
> ] first to suffer those hardships which are afterwards used as
> ] precedents against the innocent."
>
> thank you!
I completely agree.
Good thing the Bushies haven't asked to torture anybody.
A charge is not made true just by repeating it.
Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com
Jane
Pogonip wrote:
>
> Saddam, not a nice person by any stretch of the imagination, was enough
> of a strongman to hold the Pan-Islamists at bay. Now that he is gone,
> they have moved into the vacuum. This is not a step forward.
Oh, I don't agree. He only held Pan-Islamism "at bay" within his
own borders, and he did it at least in part by encouraging it OUTSIDE
his borders.
And he was used, again and again and again and again, as an
illustration that the West would not fight back, and that was
responsible for increases in terrorism worldwide.
But under no circumstances did he have only the weapons we gave to
him. The endless drumbeat that all these guys were created by us is
tendentious at best and flatout wrong at worst, another example of what
I think of as US-obsession.
In one of these discussions somewhere, somebody said to me that
this take (SH and company were "created by the US," etc) was "less
US-oriented." It's nothing of the kind. It's magical thinking.
Everything that happens in the world, especially everything bad, is
created by us, because we're the only country capable of creating it.
A good third of the Muslims on this planet think the US planned and
carried out the 9/11 attacks itself because Muslims don't have the
technical and intellectual capacity to do something that big.
The idea, however, that the fact that Pan-Islamic groups are now
operating openly in Iraq (where before they had to be covert) is a
reason why there shouldn't have been a war is senseless. Are you
HONESTLY saying that SH, drilling holes through the hands of his
prisoners, locking mothers and infants in adjacent cells so that the
mothers could hear the infants scream while they starved to death--are
you HONESTLY saying that that was preferable to what's going on there
now?
No, we did not "cause" Saddam, and the Iraqis were not better off
under his regime than they are now. The US is not all powerful. It
is not the only significant actor on the world stage. Just having
contact--even mutually beneficial contact--with some guy who later
turns out to be a nutcase does not make us the creators of the nutcase.
Noam Chomsky is far more directly responsible for what is
happening in Iraq as we speak than George W. Bush ever can be.
Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com
Jane
Jr@Ease wrote:
> Or is there another way, Jane?
>
> John P
Okay, so I sat down, and started thinking, and I finally realized
what my problem with these discussion is.
I don't know what it is you people WANT.
You've got two choices:
1) Defend your countries, your civilization, your culture, your
values, by fighting back in a way that is actually effective OR
2) Giving in, giving up, getting used to self-censorship, getting
used to making accommodations (in some neighborhoods in London,
non-Western women go out "covered," because it's "more comfortable."
In other words, because they're afraid of getting beaten up or raped
for the crime of not doing it), watching the whole thing--freedom of
speech, freedom of conscience, pluralism, gay rights, women's
rights--go.
The action so many of you claim to favor--negotiate! treat it as a
criminal matter--DOESN'T WORK.
In fact, quite a few of you know it doesn't work. When we were
talking about the Iranian nuke program, Ian said we should just
negotiate and negotiate, but then if that didn't work we should just
get used to the fact that Iran had the bomb.
Every time I have one of these discussions, we get to the point
where I go: okay, the path you're suggesting has yet to work, ever, so
far. What happens if it doesn't work this time? And I get: well,
sometimes WE just have to make accommodations.
But I'm done. I really am. There are some things about which no
decent person makes accommodations. Morality is not subjective.
Stoning people to death for being raped is morally wrong no matter who
does it, or where, or when, or what their culture is. Burying people
alive for being homosexual is morally wrong no matter who does it, or
where, or when, or what their culture is. Jailing people--never mind
beheading them--for their speech or their religion is morally wrong no
matter who does it, or where, or when, or what their culture is. And
not only are all those things morally wrong, they are properly termed
barbaric.
Civilizaton matters. It needs to be defended, first and foremost
intellectually, because if you don't defend it intellectually you end
up having to defend it militarily. Unfortunately, we've just had a
40-year-long-orgy of self hatred and self disgust: the West is the
most evil culture on earth. It's racist and sexist and homophobic. It
destroys "human rights" and keeps the rest of the world in grovelling
poverty. Everything it does is evil and deceitful. Its entire history
is nothing but genocide and oppression. It ought to be destroyed.
WE say those things about us. WE do. That wasn't invented by
Pan-Islamism--hell, they not only produce their own technology or
medicine or art, they don't even produce their own propaganda. WE
invented multiculturalism--oh, look, stoning rape victims is JUST THEIR
CULTURE, and you can't blame them for their culture. What's right for
us isn't necessarily right for them!
This sort of thinking is not only wrongheaded it"s damned near
suicidal and yet it guides everything we do about any of this problem
It"s because we can"t see past that kind of dreck that half the people
here think they have more to fear from George W Bush than they do from
the savagery and barbarism that are parked right here on our doorstep>
I"m not worried about George W Bush To the extent that there
are things in the present bill that I don"t like I trust they will get
worked out by the courts just like they did with the Patriot Act which
had similar provisions and which still resulted in the relevant ACLU
lawsuits> No the courts don"t always come through Think about those
sex offender registries But they usually do and even when they don"t
we"re still dealing with a situation several orders of magnitude less
worrisome to anybody sane than the practice of murdering people who say
things you don"t like (Danish cartoons, Rushdie editors...)
But I would, desperately, like to know what it is that you people
WANT--what do you think your ideas will get you, exactly? Do you think
that the Pan-Islamists will simply go away if you negotiate or treat
them as criminals? Doesn't it BOTHER you that these methods have yet
to work ever, that they have been practiced in a world where the other
side just keeps getting stronger and worse?
In WWII we appeased and appeased and appeased--Hitler isn't
stupid! If we give him what he wants, we'll leave him alone--until the
other side got strong enough to hit us all directly. I really have no
interest in allowing that situation to happen again, and it IS coming.
Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com
John Oliver
>
> In WWII we appeased and appeased and appeased--Hitler isn't
>stupid! If we give him what he wants, we'll leave him alone--until the
>other side got strong enough to hit us all directly. I really have no
>interest in allowing that situation to happen again, and it IS coming.
>
>
> Jane Haddam
>http://www.janehaddam.com
Yes, if I recall the history correctly, Churchill spent years during
the 1930's trying to warn the British about Hitler and was called a
warmonger for it.
--
John Oliver
jdol...@westnet.com.au
AIM or MSN jdoliver98
Catherine Fiorello
> WE say those things about us. WE do. That wasn't invented by
> Pan-Islamism--hell, they not only produce their own technology or medicine
> or art, they don't even produce their own propaganda. WE invented
> multiculturalism--oh, look, stoning rape victims is JUST THEIR CULTURE,
> and you can't blame them for their culture. What's right for us isn't
> necessarily right for them!
As the governor general in India said (paraphrased), "It may be your
culture to throw the widow on the funeral pyre. It is MY culture to take a
person who has done so and hang him by the neck until dead."
Before I'll change how I'm dressed to be more "comfortable" in my own
city, I'll get my permit and add a holster.
Dammit, I hate war but I know damn well what appeasement does.
--
Cathy F
"When everyone tells you that you've got egg on your face, don't waste
time protesting you've never had egg on you before, and besides, it's
the egg's fault. Look for a napkin."
--Lymaree, RAM
Hurricane7
"Jane" <Jane...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161340330.9...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jr@Ease wrote:
>> Or is there another way, Jane?
>>
> In fact, quite a few of you know it doesn't work. When we were
> talking about the Iranian nuke program, Ian said we should just
> negotiate and negotiate, but then if that didn't work we should just
> get used to the fact that Iran had the bomb.
Sort of like how we just let North Korea...shoot off a few
firecrackers...seems the mentality of the powers to be are different than
their counterparts in Iran...lets face it almost any country can build these
things all it takes is money and will power...someone will always be willing
to fuel the war machine. It really is the only thing that fuels the
world...war and religion
>
> Every time I have one of these discussions, we get to the point
> where I go: okay, the path you're suggesting has yet to work, ever, so
> far. What happens if it doesn't work this time? And I get: well,
> sometimes WE just have to make accommodations.
>
> But I'm done. I really am. There are some things about which no
> decent person makes accommodations. Morality is not subjective.
> Stoning people to death for being raped is morally wrong no matter who
> does it, or where, or when, or what their culture is. Burying people
> alive for being homosexual is morally wrong no matter who does it, or
> where, or when, or what their culture is. Jailing people--never mind
> beheading them--for their speech or their religion is morally wrong no
> matter who does it, or where, or when, or what their culture is. And
> not only are all those things morally wrong, they are properly termed
> barbaric.
>
> Civilizaton matters. It needs to be defended, first and foremost
> intellectually, because if you don't defend it intellectually you end
> up having to defend it militarily. Unfortunately, we've just had a
> 40-year-long-orgy of self hatred and self disgust: the West is the
> most evil culture on earth. It's racist and sexist and homophobic. It
> destroys "human rights" and keeps the rest of the world in grovelling
> poverty. Everything it does is evil and deceitful. Its entire history
> is nothing but genocide and oppression. It ought to be destroyed.
> Jane Haddam
> http://www.janehaddam.com
Western civilization may not have the same meaning in the East...and I guess
what it comes down to in the end we revert to caveman tactics and the guy
that can out fight his oponent will win...and which ever side wins may not
necessarily believe that Western civilization is the best way to be. This is
simplistic but most of us are the great debaters that some are here but
really I do believe in the end it will be might over right
It is an argument that can go on forever....as have the wars and it is my
belief that they will never have peace in the middle east..there has been
unrest there since I was old enough to listen to the news (ok no age
cracks!) and will continue long after I cease to exist in this form and I
think that the whole PanIslamic issue is here to stay also...
Patricia
[to email remove the knot]
Hurricane7
"Jane" <Jane...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161337285.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> The idea, however, that the fact that Pan-Islamic groups are now
> operating openly in Iraq (where before they had to be covert) is a
> reason why there shouldn't have been a war is senseless. Are you
> HONESTLY saying that SH, drilling holes through the hands of his
> prisoners, locking mothers and infants in adjacent cells so that the
> mothers could hear the infants scream while they starved to death--are
> you HONESTLY saying that that was preferable to what's going on there
> now?
>
> Jane Haddam
> http://www.janehaddam.com
Again, acts of war are acts of war...we put weapons in the hands of people
and say "go forth and kill" so I do believe that SH and crew were doing just
those types of things and probably a lot worse but we of course really don't
want to hear the nitty gritty....on the flip side you have to be naive to
believe that Western troops also don't carry out some forms of torture
....it seems to me that if you believe you are destroying an adversary then
you must be willing to trounce him with something more effective than a
feather duster...how much and what type of torture are surely not going to
be portrayed (except the ones the reporters snift out) to show on home
ground.
I am not naive enough to believe when I watch the news or read the
newspapers or the internet that everything is true but when items like grown
men stomping and setting fire to other humans and burning flags...also means
that the other side is going to do something just as horrific...after all
they are there to fight...of course I am sure that there are also good
soldiers on both sides of the lines but of course there are always extremist
on both sides also.
Mary
Jane wrote:
> Jr@Ease wrote:
> > Or is there another way, Jane?
> >
> > John P
>
> Okay, so I sat down, and started thinking, and I finally realized
> what my problem with these discussion is.
>
> I don't know what it is you people WANT.
Clarity, if it can be had. Part of the problem is that it's not clear
to most people what we're fighting for. Twenty-year olds sign up to
"serve their country" without really knowing what that means in any
specific way, and others protest the war because, it seems to me, they
don't know why it's being fought.
> You've got two choices:
>
> 1) Defend your countries, your civilization, your culture, your
> values, by fighting back in a way that is actually effective OR
>
> 2) Giving in, giving up, getting used to self-censorship, getting
> used to making accommodations (in some neighborhoods in London,
> non-Western women go out "covered," because it's "more comfortable."
> In other words, because they're afraid of getting beaten up or raped
> for the crime of not doing it), watching the whole thing--freedom of
> speech, freedom of conscience, pluralism, gay rights, women's
> rights--go.
>
> The action so many of you claim to favor--negotiate! treat it as a
> criminal matter--DOESN'T WORK.
Well, that wasn't me. I've never been in favor of negotiating with
terrorists.
> In fact, quite a few of you know it doesn't work. When we were
> talking about the Iranian nuke program, Ian said we should just
> negotiate and negotiate, but then if that didn't work we should just
> get used to the fact that Iran had the bomb.
Well, that's Ian. He's not everyone here. I don't want anyone that
irresponsible to have the bomb. For that matter, I don't really want
ANYONE to have the bomb, but it's too late for that.
> Every time I have one of these discussions, we get to the point
> where I go: okay, the path you're suggesting has yet to work, ever, so
> far. What happens if it doesn't work this time? And I get: well,
> sometimes WE just have to make accommodations.
>
> But I'm done. I really am. There are some things about which no
> decent person makes accommodations. Morality is not subjective.
> Stoning people to death for being raped is morally wrong no matter who
> does it, or where, or when, or what their culture is. Burying people
> alive for being homosexual is morally wrong no matter who does it, or
> where, or when, or what their culture is. Jailing people--never mind
> beheading them--for their speech or their religion is morally wrong no
> matter who does it, or where, or when, or what their culture is. And
> not only are all those things morally wrong, they are properly termed
> barbaric.
>
> Civilizaton matters. It needs to be defended, first and foremost
> intellectually, because if you don't defend it intellectually you end
> up having to defend it militarily. Unfortunately, we've just had a
> 40-year-long-orgy of self hatred and self disgust: the West is the
> most evil culture on earth. It's racist and sexist and homophobic. It
> destroys "human rights" and keeps the rest of the world in grovelling
> poverty. Everything it does is evil and deceitful. Its entire history
> is nothing but genocide and oppression. It ought to be destroyed.
Quite a few of us here aren't disagreeing with this. It's not Jane vs
everyone.
After reading all this, I can tell you what I want. Some recognition
that "you people" isn't a big homogeneous group, it's several
individual people who are not all arguing the same thing.
Mary
Mary
Cheryl Perkins wrote:
Jane wrote:
> > I don't know what it is you people WANT.
>
> > You've got two choices:
>
> > 1) Defend your countries, your civilization, your culture, your
> > values, by fighting back in a way that is actually effective OR
>
> > 2) Giving in, giving up, getting used to self-censorship, getting
> > used to making accommodations (in some neighborhoods in London,
> > non-Western women go out "covered," because it's "more comfortable."
> > In other words, because they're afraid of getting beaten up or raped
> > for the crime of not doing it), watching the whole thing--freedom of
> > speech, freedom of conscience, pluralism, gay rights, women's
> > rights--go.
>
> <snip>
>
> You're arguing at the wrong level. Those two choices are only relevant if
> you believe the present situation really is one of a war between two
> civilizations rather than yet more terrorism/violent crime from a rather
> insignificant (because, comparatively speaking, lacking in military and
> political power) group of people.
>
> I know you think we are in a war of civilizations, but asking questions
> based on the assumption you are correct of people who think you are not is
> never going to give reasonable answers because you and they are operating
> on different assumptions at a far more basic level of understanding of the
> reality underlying current events.
>
> I don't have any solution for this disconnect.
I think you've mislocated the disconnect, though. I think it's pretty
clear that the Islamicists (Pan-Islamists, call 'em what you will) are,
as Jane says, out to impose their rules on the rest of us. And I'd
agree that given the choice, as much as I hate war, I'd much rather
have a war than live in a 14th century Islamic culture.
But this rather insignificant group of people, as you've called them,
have had some success in getting what they want. How else did they get
a bunch of apologies for the Danish cartoons? Because people are
regarding them (or wanting to regard them) as just another religion,
and we have freedom of religion and so they're entitled to their views.
How else did they get to use sharia law in places like England (and,
from what I've heard, Ontario)? Because people are regarding them as
just another religion, and we have freedom of religion and so they're
entitled to their views.
But THEY don't believe in freedom of religion. They're not going to
live alongside us in tolerance and cooperation. They want everyone to
live according to their rules. And as Jane says, that needs to be
recognized sooner rather than later or it's going to be a lot harder to
deal with.
It would be nice if they were all like my Muslim co-worker who truly
believes in freedom of religion and acts like it. But they're not
going to become so simply because we want them to. And the more we
treat them like they don't matter, and the more we give in and shrug
and say, well, that's their culture, then the harder it will be to put
a stop to this in the long run. That's what Jane's saying, from what I
can see.
If you want freedom of conscience for everyone, cultural relativism and
acceptance of sharia law and permitting them to treat their women like
chattel just isn't going to get you there.
Mary
Jane
Hurricane7 wrote:
>
> Again, acts of war are acts of war...we put weapons in the hands of people
> and say "go forth and kill" so I do believe that SH and crew were doing just
> those types of things and probably a lot worse but we of course really don't
> want to hear the nitty gritty....on the flip side you have to be naive to
> believe that Western troops also don't carry out some forms of torture
> ....it seems to me that if you believe you are destroying an adversary then
> you must be willing to trounce him with something more effective than a
> feather duster...how much and what type of torture are surely not going to
> be portrayed (except the ones the reporters snift out) to show on home
> ground.
> I am not naive enough to believe when I watch the news or read the
> newspapers or the internet that everything is true but when items like grown
> men stomping and setting fire to other humans and burning flags...also means
> that the other side is going to do something just as horrific...after all
> they are there to fight...of course I am sure that there are also good
> soldiers on both sides of the lines but of course there are always extremist
> on both sides also.
No, I'm sorry, there is no moral equivalence here.
There is an ENORMOUS difference--morally and practically--between
torture carried out as established policy and torture carried out as
rogue acts of individual soldiers/units/groups acting against their
society's norms.
There is an ENORMOUS difference--morally and practically--between
a society that condemns such acts when they are discovered and arrests,
prosecutes and punishes the perpetrators and one that lauds the
perpetrators as heroes and admires and rewards them.
Torture was not a rogue act in SH's regime. It is not a rogue act
of Pan-Islamist groups. In both cases, it is not only established
policy, but encouraged and rewarded behavior.
The side that condemns and punishes such behavior is morally
superior to, and more deserving of the support of good people, than the
side that encourages and rewards it.
Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com
Mary
Cheryl Perkins wrote:
> I wasn't going to get into this at any length.
Heh. My work here is nearly done.
> They've had relatively little success, in spite of the cartoons and the
> killings. The cartoons were publicized far more widely than they would
> have been otherwise - I looked them up myself - to millions of people who
> have not apologized and don't intend to.
Sure, but how much success is acceptable? 3000 people on 9/11? A few
beheadings on the news? For that matter, is it acceptable for them to
treat the women in their own country like they're the moral equivalent
of a reasonably productive milk cow?
> Well, now, I don't know about England, but in Ontario the attempt to allow
> sharia law in family disputes for those who opt to use it was not only
> rejected, the dispute led to the elimination of the already-existing
> option to use Jewish and Catholic tribunals for the same purpose.
Good, I'm glad to hear that.
> Who are THEY? The immigrants who use our systems properly and peacefully
> to get rules they want accepted? If so, they aren't having a lot of
> success, and anyway both tolerance and the rule of law require that they
> be permitted to make the attempt. Political/religious zealots of the Bin
> Laden variety? A real danger to be sure, but not one to be dealt with by
> lumping all Muslims into one bag.
But I'm not. I'm making a distinction between the Pan-Islamicists and
the decent citizen down the street who happens to be Muslim.
> But my Muslim friends and the local students and both the local and
> national Muslim leaders are like your co-worker - so are we supposed to
> recognize them as part of the THEY?
Not unless they're trying to force us into veils and stop us from
getting drivers' licenses, no. People either support the extremists or
they don't. It's a matter of their own self-identification. How do
they view themselves, as a Canadian or an American who is Muslim, or as
a Muslim who lives in Toronto or Minneapolis but supports the
imposition of Muslim law on everyone?
> If people in another country want to live in a way I don't like, that's
> their right. In fact, it's their right to do so in this country, as long
> as they don't break the laws. And if their conscience leads them to lobby
> the government of Ontario for the same kind of support for religious
> arbitration of family disputes as the Jewish and Christian groups already
> had for years, they have every right to do so - although in fact, the
> attempt backfired.
Agreed, but you're assuming that all the people in that other country
want to live in a way that we don't like. Do the women there really
want to be sat on? Is it wrong of us to try to help them if they want
it?
Mary
Mary
Mary wrote:
> Jane wrote:
> > Jr@Ease wrote:
> > > Or is there another way, Jane?
> > >
> > > John P
> >
> > Okay, so I sat down, and started thinking, and I finally realized
> > what my problem with these discussion is.
> >
> > I don't know what it is you people WANT.
>
> Clarity, if it can be had. Part of the problem is that it's not clear
> to most people what we're fighting for. Twenty-year olds sign up to
> "serve their country" without really knowing what that means in any
> specific way, and others protest the war because, it seems to me, they
> don't know why it's being fought.
And this, by the way, wasn't directed at Jane. You've been quite clear
in expressing yourself. The clarity that I want is from the government
who's sending us to fight and die. If you're going to ask your
citizens to go to war, the reason why should be made clear, and as was
noted in a post of yours (Jane), Bush has been less than forthcoming
about the war, the reasons we're at war, the way it's being waged, and
whether it's successful.
It's the smokescreen that I object to.
Mary
Jr@Ease
Many a Quaint and Curious Forgotten Post, and then wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Jr@Ease wrote:
>> > Or is there another way, Jane?
>> >
>> > John P
>>
>> Okay, so I sat down, and started thinking, and I finally realized
>> what my problem with these discussion is.
>>
>> I don't know what it is you people WANT.
>
>Clarity, if it can be had. Part of the problem is that it's not clear
>to most people what we're fighting for. Twenty-year olds sign up to
>"serve their country" without really knowing what that means in any
>specific way, and others protest the war because, it seems to me, they
>don't know why it's being fought.
And not clarity from Jane, but from the leaders of my country. I
understand Jane. I still don't understand Bush.
Maybe I'm being selfish here, but I have a 16 year old son who in two
years could be in Iraq, and I'd want to know why, before I could
accept it. I imagine Jane would feel the same way about her sons.
<snip, snip, snip>
>
>After reading all this, I can tell you what I want. Some recognition
>that "you people" isn't a big homogeneous group, it's several
>individual people who are not all arguing the same thing.
>
>Mary
I think I understand that larger picture Jane's been painting, and for
the most part I agree with her. I see the threat of P-I. Right now
it's not as immediate but it has the potential.
My problem is that I'm not sure the Bushies are on the same page with
her.
That being said, why do we have to do anything? Why are our only two
choices to have a war or give in? That "fallacy of the excluded
middle" seems to apply to that dichotomy also. It seems to me that if
it were not for oil, we could simply ignore the islamic states, and
pan-islamism. Those countries contribute very little to the West,
except oil. So if we get rid of the oil dependency, we could simply
isolate them, ignore them, pretend they are not here. To the extent
they're in western countries, we simply require them to abide by
existing laws. In their own countries, as Cheryl mentioned, they can
do as they please. We may not like FGM, or sharia, or whatever else
they impose on their populations, but are we to invade them because of
it? No more than they should invade us because they don't like the
Boston combat zone.
One more log for the fire.
John P
Lynn allen
> On the other, there is the not entirely
> wrong perception that we are philosophically and ideationally weak,
> that we ourselves don't value the things we say we value, that we'll
> give up rather than face hardship, that we no longer believe in the
> intrinsic worth of our societies and cultures.
My thought is that a big part of this misconception on the part of other
societies is that they have no CONCEPT of how much American society
varies. They live in places where ethnic diversity is either nonexistent
or cause for genocide, religious diversity the same, and economic
diversity is perpetuated for the good of the few at the cost of the
many.
They don't get that while vast numbers of Americans (and American media,
which are what the rest of the world sees) can be pursuing shallow and
largely frivolous ends, like dog beauty pageants and demolition derbys,
perfect tans and perfect teeth, there are still plenty of us ready and
able to take up the serious tasks required.
I think it's a mistake to talk of Americans as all one thing or one way.
Though I do admit that at times it seems as if the shallow and frivolous
are taking over, and its an uphill slog to try to get common sense and
courage of conviction to take a front-row seat in the world-wide
perception of Americans.
Lymaree
Mary
Jr@Ease wrote:
>
> My problem is that I'm not sure the Bushies are on the same page with
> her.
That was what I was getting at when I said I wanted clarity of purpose
from the government that's waging war. It may be that the Bushies ARE
waging war for just this reason, but they certainly haven't made that
clear to the rest of us.
> That being said, why do we have to do anything? Why are our only two
> choices to have a war or give in? That "fallacy of the excluded
> middle" seems to apply to that dichotomy also. It seems to me that if
> it were not for oil, we could simply ignore the islamic states, and
> pan-islamism. Those countries contribute very little to the West,
> except oil. So if we get rid of the oil dependency, we could simply
> isolate them, ignore them, pretend they are not here. To the extent
> they're in western countries, we simply require them to abide by
> existing laws. In their own countries, as Cheryl mentioned, they can
> do as they please. We may not like FGM, or sharia, or whatever else
> they impose on their populations, but are we to invade them because of
> it? No more than they should invade us because they don't like the
> Boston combat zone.
I struggle with this.
Yes, other countries and other cultures should be left alone to live
their lives, because that's what we want them to do to us. And yet if
I were a woman in Iran or Iraq I'm not sure that I'd agree. I think I
might be grateful to someone who helped me escape the chador and let me
get educated and have a job, if that's what I wanted. Leaving them
alone to live is all very well but they're treating half their
population like utter crap and I have a hard time just shrugging and
saying, oh, well, that's their culture.
Does this give us a right to force them to live our way? No, I don't
think it does. But I do wish that it could somehow be arranged that
women in these places could be given a choice. And that given the
choice, they'd say, give me the education, the regular clothes and the
driver's license. I'm outta here.
Because then the fundamentalist Muslim men who are treating them this
way wouldn't have any way of reproducing themselves, and then the
problem would end in a generation.
I know it's not that simple, unfortunately, and I don't have an answer.
This is something that I go around and around on in my head, spinning
my wheels and wondering what's right.
Mary
Pogonip
tool, as the U.S. has used so many around the world as pawns in a power
game of the U.S. against world communism, which seems pretty much a dead
issue at this date.
We keep getting stuck in an either-or view. Leave Saddam to wreak
havoc, or invade and remove him but have nothing to put in his place.
Was there no other alternative? Was there no way to find someone to
replace Saddam in a palace coup of some kind? A guardianship perhaps.
Is the only answer to wipe the Pan-Islamists off the face of the earth?
That's exactly what they think the solution to the problem of the west
is. Convert or die. If they are true religious fanatics, none of this
matters to them, because they have one foot in the "afterlife" at all
times. Life and death has little meaning. If they were just the usual
power-hungry dictators, we could maybe get somewhere with them. ;-)
Whether torture is institutional or rogue means nothing to the victim.
Jr@Ease
Many a Quaint and Curious Forgotten Post, and then wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
>I struggle with this.
>
>Yes, other countries and other cultures should be left alone to live
>their lives, because that's what we want them to do to us. And yet if
>I were a woman in Iran or Iraq I'm not sure that I'd agree. I think I
>might be grateful to someone who helped me escape the chador and let me
>get educated and have a job, if that's what I wanted. Leaving them
>alone to live is all very well but they're treating half their
>population like utter crap and I have a hard time just shrugging and
>saying, oh, well, that's their culture.
>
>Does this give us a right to force them to live our way? No, I don't
>think it does. But I do wish that it could somehow be arranged that
>women in these places could be given a choice. And that given the
>choice, they'd say, give me the education, the regular clothes and the
>driver's license. I'm outta here.
>
>Because then the fundamentalist Muslim men who are treating them this
>way wouldn't have any way of reproducing themselves, and then the
>problem would end in a generation.
>
>I know it's not that simple, unfortunately, and I don't have an answer.
> This is something that I go around and around on in my head, spinning
>my wheels and wondering what's right.
>
>Mary
Yes, my own response to what I wrote was the same. Maybe the answer
is that when we are less dependant on oil, when the Muslim nations
find that they actually need us, rather than the other way around, the
population will be a lot more receptive to the example we now set for
the way we treat our people. Then slowly, things will change.
Rome wasn't built in a day, right?
John P
John Oliver
<cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>You're arguing at the wrong level. Those two choices are only relevant if
>you believe the present situation really is one of a war between two
>civilizations rather than yet more terrorism/violent crime from a rather
>insignificant (because, comparatively speaking, lacking in military and
>political power) group of people.
Cheryl,
It is difficult to class a group as criminals when they act as a
country within a country (Afghanistan and Lebanon come to mind) and
run training camps for thousands of recruits.
And they don't need conventional military power when they are willing
to use suicide bombers and deliberately target civilians.
Mary
Jr@Ease wrote:
> Yes, my own response to what I wrote was the same. Maybe the answer
> is that when we are less dependant on oil, when the Muslim nations
> find that they actually need us, rather than the other way around, the
> population will be a lot more receptive to the example we now set for
> the way we treat our people. Then slowly, things will change.
I'd like to hope so.
> Rome wasn't built in a day, right?
So I'm told. I'm not old enough to remember personally.
Mary
Hurricane7
"Mary" <mrfea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161366369.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I work with many cultures..I am now training a young woman who wears a
hajib, while we have never really discussed the matter to any length I don't
think she feels it hinders her in her choice of profession...she is
comfortable looking and wearing her native clothes...now she is living in a
western country and I don't know if she is Canadian born or not but she has
been educated here and still conforms to her heritage. She looks different
and speaks with an accent but she is still a woman underneath and we are
becoming friends...she does not feel oppressed by her choice of religion any
more than she would if she were any other religion. I also work with women
who adhere to Sharia law and they defend it...if sure wouldn't do for me but
if they live within the lawful bounds of the country...why should I stress
about it...I don't have to live under their customs...but we all have to
work side by side. I also work with Somali women who have undergone female
circumcision who (no it was not done in Canada as it is against the law
IIRC) seem to think that we (as in the Canadian women she knows) are the
ones that have it backward...how do you argue with this? She is a lawabiding
hardworking member of her family supporting quite a few brothers and
sisters in other parts of the world. My previous boss (who is a WASP from
Montreal) married a Persian (insisted this was the proper term) as she did
not want to a part of the current situation in Iran...maybe my point here is
we are all so diverse even if we don't look or act it....just because a
lifestyle doesn't fit what think of as normal or the right way doesn't mean
that it is always bad either, and for the most part it has been going on for
longer than just one generation
>
> Does this give us a right to force them to live our way? No, I don't
> think it does. But I do wish that it could somehow be arranged that
> women in these places could be given a choice. And that given the
> choice, they'd say, give me the education, the regular clothes and the
> driver's license. I'm outta here.
>
> Because then the fundamentalist Muslim men who are treating them this
> way wouldn't have any way of reproducing themselves, and then the
> problem would end in a generation.
>
> I know it's not that simple, unfortunately, and I don't have an answer.
> This is something that I go around and around on in my head, spinning
> my wheels and wondering what's right.
>
> Mary
I don't know the answer either Mary....it really is far too complex and
there is no one correct answer...
Mary
Well, yeah, but Patricia, by definition the women you work with are in
Canada, which means they either chose to go there themselves, or were
brought there by family, and in either case it means that they're
probably from a more open-minded background that the fundamentalists
who stayed in (insert country name here).
I think your sample is somewhat self-selecting. My concern above was
for women who are kept in places like Iraq and Somalia and not given
any choices or indeed even given enough education to recognize that
such choices exist.
Mary
Francis A. Miniter
Francis A. Miniter
vj wrote:
> ]vj wrote:
> ]> vj found this in rec.arts.mystery, from "Chris F.A. Johnson"
> ]> <cfajo...@gmail.com> :
> ]>
> ]> ] "...least of all should the law be strained for the purpose of
> ]> ] inflicting torture and destroying life. That Oates was a bad man
> ]> ] is not a sufficient excuse; for the guilty are almost always the
> ]> ] first to suffer those hardships which are afterwards used as
> ]> ] precedents against the innocent."
>
> vj:
> ]> EXACTLY!
> ]> thank you!
>
> vj found this in rec.arts.mystery, from "Jane" <Jane...@aol.com> :
> ] I completely agree.
>
> ??????????? "which are afterwards used as precedents against the innocent."
>
> that's what i've been TRYING to say about the Military Commissions Act!!!!
> it is going to come back and bite us in the butt! and *i think* you are
> sticking your head in the sand and trying to ignore the horrific potential
> of this document. it basically overrides both SCOTUS and the Constitution,
> of which i've always considered you to be one of it's firmest advocates.
>
> ] Good thing the Bushies haven't asked to torture anybody.
>
> ‘‘SUBCHAPTER III—PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE
> ‘‘Sec.
> ‘‘948q. Charges and specifications.
> ‘‘948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; treatment of statements
> obtained by torture and other statements.
> ‘‘948s. Service of charges.
> ‘‘§ 948q. Charges and specifications
> ‘‘(a) CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS.—Charges and specifications
> against an accused in a military commission under this chapter
> shall be signed by a person subject to chapter 47 of this title
> under oath before a commissioned officer of the armed forces authorized
> to administer oaths and shall state—
> ‘‘(1) that the signer has personal knowledge of, or reason
> to believe, the matters set forth therein; and
> ‘‘(2) that they are true in fact to the best of the signer’s
> knowledge and belief.
> S. 3930—8
> ‘‘(b) NOTICE TO ACCUSED.—Upon the swearing of the charges
> and specifications in accordance with subsection (a), the accused
> shall be informed of the charges against him as soon as practicable.
> ‘‘§ 948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; treatment
> of statements obtained by torture and other
> statements
> ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No person shall be required to testify against
> himself at a proceeding of a military commission under this chapter.
> ‘‘(b) EXCLUSION OF STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY TORTURE.—A
> statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in
> a military commission under this chapter, except against a person
> accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
> ‘‘(c) STATEMENTS OBTAINED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF DETAINEE
> TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement obtained before December
> 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment
> Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be
> admitted only if the military judge finds that—
> ‘‘(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement
> reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
>
> *****
> ‘‘(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission
> of the statement into evidence.
> *****
>
> ‘‘(d) STATEMENTS OBTAINED AFTER ENACTMENT OF DETAINEE
> TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement obtained on or after
> December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense
> Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed
> may be admitted only if the military judge finds that—
> ‘‘(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement
> reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;
> ‘‘(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission
> of the statement into evidence; and
> ‘‘(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement
> do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
> prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of
> 2005
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and i already posted that one!
>
> there is one hell of a lot of leeway in that document!
>
> and that's only one part of the document!
>
> http://news.lp.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/mca2006.pdf
>
>
>
Hurricane7
make is..what if the women in (insert country here) are not
complaining...are happy (to the extent that we are all happy) have loving
families and food on the table.....not everyone wants to be like us here in
the west... and yes I am going by own experience...but why is that such a
bad thing...it certainly reflects a small portion of the public.
I am not saying this to inflame or get touchy but sometimes I think that
westerners think that others are worse off because western journalism tells
us that...and this is a general statement also..I know there are flaws
almost everywhere...but I am so sure that everyone is as unhappy as we make
them out to be.
I know the men and women I work with are brought here by families but I also
live in an area that is ripe with gang violence that is a carryover from
their home countries... I have no solutions or advice except to let the
people I work with and live around that we can all live
together...extremists are extremists everywhere
ahh shit I need to go read...happy Friday everyone
Patricia
[to email remove the knot]
"Mary" <mrfea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161383173.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Francis A. Miniter
> Pogonip wrote:
>
>>Saddam, not a nice person by any stretch of the imagination, was enough
>>of a strongman to hold the Pan-Islamists at bay. Now that he is gone,
>>they have moved into the vacuum. This is not a step forward.
>
>
> Oh, I don't agree. He only held Pan-Islamism "at bay" within his
> own borders, and he did it at least in part by encouraging it OUTSIDE
> his borders.
>
I think you may have trouble substantiating that statement.
Francis A. Miniter
Jr@Ease
23:09:12 +0000 (UTC)), while Cheryl Perkins Pondered, Weak and Weary:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>John Oliver <aussie...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> It is difficult to class a group as criminals when they act as a
>> country within a country (Afghanistan and Lebanon come to mind) and
>> run training camps for thousands of recruits.
>
>> And they don't need conventional military power when they are willing
>> to use suicide bombers and deliberately target civilians.
>
>We've discussed this at length without agreeing, and I doubt we're about
>to agree now. I'd put them clearly on the criminal end of the
>mafia-warlord-revolutionary-state leader continuum, and so far their
>tactics, although vicious, seem unlikely to bring the west to its knees.
I'm definitely in your corner here, Cheryl. 9/11, as nasty, and
horrific as it was on an individual basis, pales in comparison with
something like Dresden or Hiroshima (not that either of those were
criminal). If anything, it will have finally awakened the West to the
danger posed by Islam, and while they may cause even more damage,
through more terrorist acts in the future, I doubt they will succeed
in whatever it is they are trying to accomplish. In the short run, we
may look to be on the losing end, but I doubt that will be the final
result.
John P
Jr@Ease
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ahh shit I need to go read...happy Friday everyone
And a happy weekend, filled with books and music, to you too.
John P
Pogonip
Thanks. I wondered about that.
Joan in GB-W
"Hurricane7" <hurri...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:4pt6jvF...@individual.net...
> Mary....I know what you are saying and I think the point I really want to
> make is..what if the women in (insert country here) are not
> complaining...are happy (to the extent that we are all happy) have loving
> families and food on the table.....not everyone wants to be like us here
in
> the west... and yes I am going by own experience...but why is that such a
> bad thing...it certainly reflects a small portion of the public.
> I am not saying this to inflame or get touchy but sometimes I think that
> westerners think that others are worse off because western journalism
tells
> us that...and this is a general statement also..I know there are flaws
> almost everywhere...but I am so sure that everyone is as unhappy as we
make
> them out to be.
>
> I know the men and women I work with are brought here by families but I
also
> live in an area that is ripe with gang violence that is a carryover from
> their home countries... I have no solutions or advice except to let the
> people I work with and live around that we can all live
> together...extremists are extremists everywhere
>
> ahh shit I need to go read...happy Friday everyone
>
> Patricia
> [to email remove the knot]
I agree with you, Patricia.
Joan
Jane
Pogonip wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> > Jane wrote:
> >
> >> Pogonip wrote:
> >>
> >>> Saddam, not a nice person by any stretch of the imagination, was enough
> >>> of a strongman to hold the Pan-Islamists at bay. Now that he is gone,
> >>> they have moved into the vacuum. This is not a step forward.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh, I don't agree. He only held Pan-Islamism "at bay" within his
> >> own borders, and he did it at least in part by encouraging it OUTSIDE
> >> his borders.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I think you may have trouble substantiating that statement.
> >
> >
> > Francis A. Miniter
>
> Thanks. I wondered about that.
I don't see why either of you should wonder about it. The fact
that Saddam sent lots of money to pay the families of Palestinian
suicide bombers--that he was one of the funders of "martyrs"--has never
been a secret, and had been reported both here and in the UK by just
about every news outlet imaginable for a long time before the Bush
administration took office.
Which means he had ties at least to Hamas (again, not disputed
by anybody I know of) and possibly to Hezbollah, both of which are
Pan-Islamist.
Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com
Wesley Struebing
<snip>
>
> I don't see why either of you should wonder about it. The fact
>that Saddam sent lots of money to pay the families of Palestinian
>suicide bombers--that he was one of the funders of "martyrs"--has never
>been a secret, and had been reported both here and in the UK by just
>about every news outlet imaginable for a long time before the Bush
>administration took office.
Almost true, Jane. The result (to me) is much as you say, in that his
"funding" probably encouraged more martyrs, but YOUR statement implies
that he was funding people to become martyrs - he wasn't. He funded
the families - after the fact.
>
> Which means he had ties at least to Hamas (again, not disputed
>by anybody I know of) and possibly to Hezbollah, both of which are
>Pan-Islamist.
>
I'm VERY curious about your definition of "Pan-Islamism" or
"Pan-Islamic". That Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist groups
(although it appears on some fronts that terrorism in and of itself
isn't solving anything for the people they putatively represent), but
they're not PAN-anything.
There ARE Pan-Islamist groups out there (like, roughly, Al-Qaiada),
but it seems the two you picked are bad examples of the term (as I
understand it - which is why I ask what YOU mean by it)
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Pogonip
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> Hurricane7 wrote:
>
>>Mary....I know what you are saying and I think the point I really want to
>>make is..what if the women in (insert country here) are not
>>complaining...are happy (to the extent that we are all happy) have loving
>>families and food on the table.....not everyone wants to be like us here in
>>the west... and yes I am going by own experience...but why is that such a
>>bad thing...it certainly reflects a small portion of the public.
>>I am not saying this to inflame or get touchy but sometimes I think that
>>westerners think that others are worse off because western journalism tells
>>us that...and this is a general statement also..I know there are flaws
>>almost everywhere...but I am so sure that everyone is as unhappy as we make
>>them out to be.
>
>
>
> slaves who would tell you they were happy and had loving families and
> food on the table, and that things were as they should should be. If
> you have a class of people that's oppressed, the injustie is not
> measured by the number of complaints.
>
There were slaves that refused to leave.
Hurricane7
purpose of slavery (at least that is what my vague brain remembers about
it ) and I not sure that someone born in Iran, Iraq, North Korea,
Afghanistan or any other number of countries feel that they are being raised
into slavery. I mean we can also say that there are plenty of unhappy
Canadians and Americans that would denounce their country for "insert reason
here" and two off the top of my head would be the abortion laws or even
draft dodgers...but should that mean that China or Australia should sanction
us or take us to war or even submit us to trade embargos or sanctions? I
know there are unhappy people everywhere...it doesn't mean that we "need" to
correct it all according to western methodology any more than we should have
been preaching Christianity to the native cultures....sometimes the whole
picture needs to be looked at.
Natural selection and mother nature will probably win out
Patricia
[to email remove the knot]
"Naomi" <darve...@aol.com> wrote in message
> x-no-archive: yes
Crowfoot
wrote:
And freed slaves who went back to work for their old masters
after the Civil War -- interesting article on archeaology of a
plantation, in current ARCHAEOLOGY magazine. Doesn't mean
that the returnees couldn't wait to get back into bondage, but it
does mean *something* or they wouldn't have done it.
Suzy
Crowfoot
Cheryl Perkins <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
> Naomi <darve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Back when we had slaves in the US, I am sure you could have found
> > slaves who would tell you they were happy and had loving families and
> > food on the table, and that things were as they should should be. If
> > you have a class of people that's oppressed, the injustie is not
> > measured by the number of complaints.
>
> I really have difficulty with the idea that someone can define another
> person's oppression by neatly slotting them into a group which is defined
> - often by the same outsider - as being oppressed and suffering injustice.
> That idea just hits all my hot buttons at once, since I've had the
> 'benefits' of such an approach to social problems explained to me in
> patronizing tones all too often.
>
> Not by you, Naomi, I hasten to add, but really, telling someone that it
> doesn't matter if she hasn't made a lot of complaints; she's oppressed and
> needs liberation anyway must surely remove any simdgen of individual power
> and right to self-determination she may have.
This is a good part of the rock that modern American feminism
cracked its hull on with regard to race; African American women
took one look and said (some did, anyway -- I heard them) that
these middle-class daughters of (comparative) privilege were
just too ignorant to speak sensibly to the needs or conditions of
the varied lives of women of color. If you speak for me, they said,
without even asking me what I think, how does that assert my
autonomy more than it is asserted by being spoken for by men?
Looked like a good point to me; still does.
Suzy
Francis A. Miniter
I concur.
Saddam Hussein depended on an Islam suppressed for stability. He may have
wanted to appear magnanimous, but he certainly did not want Sunnis or Shiites
clamoring for Islamic theocracies around him.
By the way, how does Pan-Islamism propose (if there are any Pan-Islamic
theorists to propose) to resolve the differences between Shiites and Sunnis?
Even the Anglicans and Roman Catholics have not bridged their small gap.
Francis A. Miniter
Crowfoot
"Jr@Ease" <do.not.s...@this.address> wrote:
> Once Upon a Midnight Dreary, While Mary Pondered, Weak and Weary, Over
> Many a Quaint and Curious Forgotten Post, and then wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >I struggle with this.
> >
> >Yes, other countries and other cultures should be left alone to live
> >their lives, because that's what we want them to do to us. And yet if
> >I were a woman in Iran or Iraq I'm not sure that I'd agree. I think I
> >might be grateful to someone who helped me escape the chador and let me
> >get educated and have a job, if that's what I wanted. Leaving them
> >alone to live is all very well but they're treating half their
> >population like utter crap and I have a hard time just shrugging and
> >saying, oh, well, that's their culture.
> >
> >Does this give us a right to force them to live our way? No, I don't
> >think it does. But I do wish that it could somehow be arranged that
> >women in these places could be given a choice. And that given the
> >choice, they'd say, give me the education, the regular clothes and the
> >driver's license. I'm outta here.
> >
> >Because then the fundamentalist Muslim men who are treating them this
> >way wouldn't have any way of reproducing themselves, and then the
> >problem would end in a generation.
> >
> >I know it's not that simple, unfortunately
Nope. The whole thing is just bristling with knots and puzzles
and generally unwelcome surprises. I've just been hearing an
interview on BBC3 with a young muslim woman who says she's
donned the -- damn, the one that's just a scarfe, not the full-
body tent -- as a protest against her immigrant parents' failure
to maintain what she thinks of as meaningful ties to their
background and religion, adopting as best they could the mores
of a host culture that has treated them badly. It's also, some say,
a way for young muslims to distinguish themselves from the
older generation the way some kids from reform Jewish families
suddenly go ultra-Orthodox, or Unitarians' kids turn Evangelical,
or kids of strait-laced middle class families start sporting a ton
of face-hardware and tattoos, etc. And, and, and. Different
people, different motives, different meaning to the gesture, and
the dimension of time adds still more variation (local billboards
advertise the service of removing all those tats you got when you
were young and foolish . . . somebody's biting).
Suzy
Pogonip
slaveowners. Plus there was the known versus the unknown. The siren
call of security. House slaves were often almost family - and in some
cases, were actually family since the women sometimes had children
fathered by the owner or his sons.
I think it's not so different from women staying in marriages that are
less than good - it's familiar, they know the ropes, it may not be what
they wanted at 17, but at 37, it's more secure than starting over.
Maybe humans come to love their chains.
Hurricane7
social inequality?
my whole point is that a lot of these people are happy living the lives they
are living...who are we to "liberate" them.
looking way back at the first posts it was about whether the US should
intervene...
Patricia
[to email remove the knot]
"Naomi" <darve...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161461681....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Of course I don't think the two situations are the same; my point it
> that social inequality is social inequality whether or not people
> complain about it.
>
> It doesn't necessarily follow that the US must or should intervene.
>
Mary
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> Hurricane7 wrote:
>> make is..what if the women in (insert country here) are not
>> complaining...are happy (to the extent that we are all happy) have loving
>> families and food on the table.....not everyone wants to be like us here in
>> the west... and yes I am going by own experience...but why is that such a
>> bad thing...it certainly reflects a small portion of the public.
>> I am not saying this to inflame or get touchy but sometimes I think that
>> westerners think that others are worse off because western journalism tells
>> us that...and this is a general statement also..I know there are flaws
>> almost everywhere...but I am so sure that everyone is as unhappy as we make
>> them out to be.
>
>
> slaves who would tell you they were happy and had loving families and
> food on the table, and that things were as they should should be. If
> you have a class of people that's oppressed, the injustie is not
> measured by the number of complaints.
>
Yes, that's a much more succinct way of putting it. People are, by and
large, what they're brought up to be. But sometimes what they're
brought up to be is abused, and that's not right, no matter who you are.
Mary
Mary
Or, Joanne, there are humans who take the path of least resistance (and
haven't we all worked with some of them?) and it's much easier in life
when someone else does all the stressful stuff for you, like worrying
where the food's coming from.
Mary
Mary
> ok I agree with you but....who draws the line in the sand to say that it is
> social inequality?
> my whole point is that a lot of these people are happy living the lives they
> are living...who are we to "liberate" them.
>
> looking way back at the first posts it was about whether the US should
> intervene...
No, not really, or at least I wasn't clear. I didn't mean whether the
US, specifically, should intervene, but whether anyone should. The US,
Canada, me as an individual. Doctors Without Borders. Anyone.
Mary
Mary
>
> That is certainly correct, and I did try not to connect you with all
> those who seem to leap from noticing a difference to announcing a
> complete understanding of its nature and the necessary 'cure'.
>
> It's the latter group who've left me with an allergic reaction to that
> particularly type of social analysis.
>
> And I strongly suspect that should enough women in countries in which
> they are not permitted to drive decide that it's important for them to
> drive, they'll figure out a way to change their societies so that they
> can drive.
>
> After all, when our not-so-distant ancestresses figured women should
> vote, they also figured out ways to get women the right to vote.
>
In general, you're probably right. But it still bothers me that there
are individuals who want educations, for example, and aren't permitted
to get them. And there are individuals who are forced to submit while
someone hacks off bits of their genitals. These are not necessarily
people who are happy with their lot, but in a society that condones
honor killings there isn't a hell of a lot they can do about it other
than die.
I cannot see that as acceptable on the part of their society, regardless
of whether they complain about it, or get their own rights on their own.
Mary
Mary
>
> This is a good part of the rock that modern American feminism
> cracked its hull on with regard to race; African American women
> took one look and said (some did, anyway -- I heard them) that
> these middle-class daughters of (comparative) privilege were
> just too ignorant to speak sensibly to the needs or conditions of
> the varied lives of women of color. If you speak for me, they said,
> without even asking me what I think, how does that assert my
> autonomy more than it is asserted by being spoken for by men?
> Looked like a good point to me; still does.
It's an excellent point, but it's not what I meant when I started the
sub-thread. See my last post, one up - I'm not talking about
differences of opinion about what constitutes feminism. I'm talking
about forcible female genital mutilation and women not being educated
and not even being permitted to leave the house without a male relative.
Mary
Mary
>
> I am not assuming everyone in foreign countries want to live in a way I
> don't like. I am assuming it's up to them as a group to decide how they
> want to live. Whether I support those who dislike the way things are run
> in their country (and what form my support takes) depends on a lot of
> factors ranging from my ability to actually know what the situation is
> like, my ability to do anything about it, and the kinds of actions of
> others (ranging from food aid through financial support of local fighters
> to invasion) that might affect the social situation in the foreign country
> that I consider acceptable and might try to lobby for.
But what I'm talking about is people (women, mostly) who aren't given
options and the right to decide. If people decide to live differently
than I do, well, who am I to say they're wrong? But there are a lot of
people in the world who get the crap end of the stick and don't get any
choice in the matter.
> And, of course, there are plenty of people in my own country who make
> choices I don't like and don't approve of. Mostly, they get to do what
> they want, and sometimes other people help them out if they want something
> different, or pick up the pieces if they don't, and their choices have
> what I consider a predictable result. I can't fix their lives; I sure
> can't fix the lives of strangers on the other side of the world. I might
> help people in either group - IF I know what can be helpful, have the
> resources, and the recipient wants help.
>
Well, that's what I was getting at. Can you do anything? Should you?
I don't know.
Mary
Pogonip
I think this is the big attraction of some religions, like the LDS.
Lynn allen
> By the way, how does Pan-Islamism propose (if there are any Pan-Islamic
> theorists to propose) to resolve the differences between Shiites and Sunnis?
> Even the Anglicans and Roman Catholics have not bridged their small gap.
I think the classic way....Kill them all (of the other guys, whoever
"other" happens to be) and let Allah sort them out.
Lymaree
Lynn allen
> And, and, and. Different
> people, different motives
Sounds like all the same motive....I Will Not Grow Up to Be My Parents.
Didn't we all have that one? Some of it just expressed differently.
Lymaree
Catherine Fiorello
> Well, that's what I was getting at. Can you do anything? Should you? I
> don't know.
>
> Mary
I donate to this group: http://www.rawa.org/
--
Cathy F
"When everyone tells you that you've got egg on your face, don't waste
time protesting you've never had egg on you before, and besides, it's
the egg's fault. Look for a napkin."
--Lymaree, RAM
Mary
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:40:26 +0000, Mary wrote:
>
>> Well, that's what I was getting at. Can you do anything? Should you? I
>> don't know.
>>
>> Mary
>
> I donate to this group: http://www.rawa.org/
>
Thanks, Cathy.
Mary
Mary
Unfortunately, you're exactly right, Lymaree. I first saw that on a
t-shirt worn by a Lebanese militia soldier in, I think, 1982. I'm sure
it wasn't the first time the expression was used, but these guys have
been killing each other and trusting their deity to sort it out for a
long, long, long damn time.
Mary
Lynn allen
> > I think the classic way....Kill them all (of the other guys, whoever
> > "other" happens to be) and let Allah sort them out.
>
>
> Unfortunately, you're exactly right, Lymaree. I first saw that on a
> t-shirt worn by a Lebanese militia soldier in, I think, 1982. I'm sure
> it wasn't the first time the expression was used, but these guys have
> been killing each other and trusting their deity to sort it out for a
> long, long, long damn time.
No, it's a classic quote..."Kill them all and let God sort them out" or
"God knows his own."
I've heard it in several movies, etc.
Lymaree