[mike777]

Ya I think integrity is worth dying for but easy for me to say as an old man sitting at my keyboard.

I do not question those that really had to face this issue in real life.

Of course I also believe the Constitution is not a Suicide document.

Heck I want you guys to howl loud and often....just vote for us to Win...whatever the heck that means....

We are all old enough to remember how millions, literally millions of Europeans marched against the Pershing Missile deployment. This was the short range nuke that would land on Europe, mostly West Germany if ever used.

It would be used as a first strike missle..we use nukes first, to stop tanks.

Europe as a result spent very little on antitank defense and basically had none once this was deployed. It spent its money on consumer goods.

Too its credit West Germany's leaders voted eagerly for this weapon despite it meaning the wipe out of most of their country. Not sure the Usa would have been so valiant.

I just bring this up again because that war was 40+ years long with victory ill defined and millions and millions calling the usa empire killer baby mongers willing to use Nukes first to kill Europe's children.

[pbleighton]

"Heck I want you guys to howl loud and often....just vote for us to Win...whatever the heck that means.... "

I vote for us to avoid tragic unwinnable situations, and I know exactly what that means...

"I do not question those that really had to face this issue in real life."

A war crime is a war crime. No question about it.

Peter

[mycroft]

I've avoided these arguments for two reasons:
1) I'm Canadian. I happen to be a liberal (not a Liberal, more liberal than that) *in Canada*, which means that U.S. Democrats think I'm on a par with Castro, and Republicans actively look for horns or copies of the Little Red Book.
2) I'm Canadian, which means that there are Americans (not meaning anyone here, but there are Americans) who say "you don't live here, you can't know, it's not your problem, go away." Now those people want the best of both worlds - they want to be the Only Superpower, able to affect the rest of the world with their actions and use that to their advantage, but also telling rest of the world that what happens in the Only Superpower doesn't matter to them. They haven't called me a wog, yet, but it's only a matter of time...
and 3) of course - my opinions are from Mars. I know that.

However:

1) This is a war, if anything, about power. I said on September 11, 2001, to my Irish ASL opponent, that the overreaction is going to be ugly. And as far as I am concerned, it has.

- The PNAC-influenced Republicans found an pretext to implement their ideas; ideas designed to make it clear to the world that America has the Power, don't piss us off, or we can destroy you. And don't think we are distracted by the other people we are destroying; we have the power to do this on many fronts at once.

"CORE MISSION[] for U.S. military forces:
[]
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars"
- "Rebuilding America's Defences", Project for the New American Century, Sept. 2000.

Note that that is not "have the ability to fight..." Hmm, shortly after WTC, we were involved in a war in Afghanistan, and the Executive was pushing hard for (and eventually got, despite the quality of the evidence and the "Okay, that didn't fly, let's try this reason" changes in why the US should) a war in Iraq. Which they decisively won, in both cases. It's the peace they're having trouble winning.

- Congress passes the PATRIOT Act. What is that, if not grabbing power from the people and putting it in the hands of the already powerful? A great way to have power over someone else is to know what they do, so that you can use any breaches from "accepted" behaviour to blackmail them into doing what you want them to do. And, of course, if you're a known blackmailer, others who know you know what they're doing will do what you want them to do to avoid the breaches from "accepted" behaviour that will put them under your spell.

Hmm, replace blackmail with arrest. Or refuse to allow to fly. Or rendition (Arar-style or "extraordinary"). or...And then look at TIA, Operation TIPS, "tell us everything and don't tell anyone you've told us" National Security Letters, ID required to travel anywhere by air, probably soon by bus or train, _Hiibel_-authorized "papers, please" checks, and decide whether this is being done.

Oh wait, what is the motto of the Office of Information Awareness? Oh yeah, "Knowledge is Power".

- On the other side, we have people - yes, mostly Islamic, mostly Arab (at the moment), but also South Americans, North Koreans, Chechnyans among others - who have no power. They have enough of a no life that suicide is worth it, if in doing so, it gives their life meaning. There are people in those groups - and you notice they're not the ones getting themselves killed - with power. Not USA-size power, not Bill Gates-size power, but power nonetheless. They get power by inciting hatred against the US and getting people to do what they want. They get money, too, that way. Are they fundamentalist Islamics? Well, they sound like it, but that's currently a great way to get the people - sorry, the power. In 1930 they were Communist, in 1950 they were Catholic in Northern Ireland, in 1770 they were white colonial male settlers.

Sometimes they win for "their cause"; sometimes even after that they retain their power. Sometimes - frequently, in fact - their life is short. But it has power. There were always candidates for the Roman Purple, even in 69A.D., the "year of the four emperors".

This is why, I believe, the "war on terror" is fundamentally wrong. The Amish got it right - you do the Christian thing (in their case, at least - insert your own religion here) and turn the other cheek, rebuild and prepare for the next nutcase in any way they can without changing their lives. And they are respected for it, and I bet they're a lot less likely to have repeat terror attacks than the US in general. And they've done it without changing the nature of their lifestyle, or compromising their fundamental beliefs.

What the US is doing with the "war on terror" is propping up the terrorist leaders by augmenting their power. "See? If we don't fight The Great Satan, they will come and kill us - for no reason. I will give you power (a gun, or a bomb), and your life will have meaning". Oh, and I get more powerful because I can send a bomb anywhere I want.

I believe this is the fundamental problem with the "war on drugs" as well - illegal drugs have an artificially-supported massive profit margin in its market. All that does is increase the power of the drug lords. It also increases the power of the people down the chain, because there's just so much profit to run around. I happen to think that drug addiction is very wrong, but basically harmless - it's all the things that happen to keep access to the massive profit margin, and all the things the addicted do to meet the massively-inflated payments that are the harm. But that's way off topic.

2) This fight for power is fundamentally changing the United States of America, and the ideas on which it stands. Not everybody knows the freedoms granted them by the United States Constitution, but they know the last line of the "Star-Spangled Banner", you betcha.

Mike says the Constitution is not a Suicide document. Sure it is - if necessary. The declaration of Independence expects the rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", and in order to truly retrieve it, the signers "mutually sign [their] Lives, [their] Fortunes, and [their] sacred Honor". The preamble of the Constitution states:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It does not state that the defence of an individual is at all important - in fact, the only thing in there that is individuated is "secure[ing] the blessings of liberty". The Constitution is a Liberty document - and that that was the intent is borne out by the Amendments, most of which reiterate rights ensuring the liberty of citizens. And that has always involved people dying to keep the Constitution alive.

To paraphrase a famous American,
"Eleven score and ten years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."

That nation, it is my firm belief, has nothing to fear - as far as enduring is concerned - from the terrorists. Even left totally alone, they could not do enough to the United States to even make anyone worry about its fall. The world's terrorists, dropping all their various current goals and targeting America's downfall, couldn't put even the pressure that is currently being put on Israel; and that is in no danger of ceasing to endure.

However, a nation so concieved and so dedicated is under terrible pressure from the powerhungry, who gain power in the name of Safety - not safety of the nation, but safety of individual people. In that fear - and it is a fear, not a reality, especially considering the relative chances of death by terrorism vs. death by firearm (which We are willing to Accept to retain our Liberty) or vs. death by vehicle (which We are willing to Accept to retain our Freedom) - they have passed laws that are designed to remove the dedication to equality and remove Liberty.

If that is a cause for which Americans should still fight - if they still wish to be Brave, Brave enough to continue to live in the land of the Free (you thought I had forgotten about how I started this part, didn't you?) - then they must accept that that fight costs lives. Not the lives of the Military, perhaps - perhaps the lives of random stockbrokers and their children, or you, or me - but there is a cost. Bravery is accepting that cost to oneself. Freedom does involve the freedom to choose to remain free, paying whatever cost that entails, or to give it up to ensure Safety.

As far as I am concerned, if this does not happen, if Freedom is no longer Free (as in GPL, not as in beer), then the great experiment that is the United States of America has failed, and the terrorists have won. I frankly believe that the terrorists have already won, that the US is no longer the country it was in 2000, and that the debilatory changes weren't due to a couple of planes-turned-bombs.

Please note, my Constitution states that the intended goals are "peace, order and good government." So "practice what you preach" has an odd consequence (we're peaceful, orderly, and Stephen Harper is the PM. Well, two out of three ain't bad).

3) The Government says it's "promoting democracy". The problem with democracy, is that it requires Freedom. And as I said above, true Freedom includes the freedom to give up that freedom. If democracy is truly the goal, then the US would accept a party running on an abolitionist, totalitarian or monarchist ticket, and should it win, and implement its policy, it should be accepted as the will of the people. Ain't gonna happen in Afghanistan (at least not through the duly elected government, at least), nor in Iraq. The US only wants democracy in other countries when the will of the people is compatible with the will of the US. If that's not the case, a puppet "democratic" government will be set up that is acceptable to the US, and "nation-building" will consist of writing a constitution that will make the removal of "democracy" impossible (instead of just difficult, which is a good thing to do), and transition orders that can't be voided for three years after the US leaves, and...

4) I will not discuss the "war on terror" as a War, because when it's convenient for the Executive, we're at war, but when it's not convenient (i.e. it will result in lost votes for the election), we're "America as always." It's just a word, not a state of the state; and that particular end run around the checks and balances and Extreme Powers in Time of War bothers me. At least Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act officially, and paid the price for it, in 1970.

End of Rant. You may start reading again.
Michael.

[Al_U_Card]

Well said, Michael. My only problem is that we are geographically VERY close to the US...

[Winstonm]

Here is something interesting I read about these so-called Radical Islamics.
Anyone know anything else?

1) Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that: "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international Mujiheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.”

2) The CIA and MI6 (British Intelligence) recruit and train more than 100,000 militants to Help Fight Afghan “jihad” against the Soviet Union.

3) History of “Al Qaeda” or “the Database” 1992-1995: The Pentagon Uses Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to fight against the Serbs in Bosnia. The Pentagon helps bring thousands of mujaheddin and other Islamic militants from Central Asia into Europe to fight alongside the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs.

4) The ISI (Pakistani intelligence agency) actively collaborates with the CIA. It continues to perform the role of a ‘go-between' in numerous intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA. The ISI directly supports and finances a number of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. [Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research CA 10-9-2001]

5) Shortly before 9/11 the then-head of the ISI, General Mahmood Ahmed wired $100,000 to the lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta. This was confirmed by the FBI investigation and Indian intelligence officials tracing the financial ties of the hijackers. [Wall Street Journal 10/10/01, Times of India, 8-15-02]

6) Despite all of this information, the 9/11 Commission report claimed: “we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding” [9/11 Commission report pg. 172].

7) In July 2001, FBI counterterrorism expert John O’Neill says, “The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” He adds, “All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden’s organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia.”

So who are these Radical Muslims? And why didn't we invade Pakistan? Are we fighting a ghost of our own creation? What the heck is going on?

[Al_U_Card]

Welcome to the "real" real world. Where illusion and subterfuge, obfuscation and confusion are the tools of those that hold and wield the power. Never be surprised by the lengths nor the breadth of the methods that can be used to manipulate and control. What indeed is going on?

[Winstonm]

Here is an example of a little more reality creationism - from the Attorney General of the U.S. and Sen. Arlen Spertre.

Quote

Yesterday, during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, then added, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”

Specter pushed back. “Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?” Specter told Gonzales, “You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.” Watch it:

No, Senator, Gonzales is not violating common sense - he is just taking a view from a point of created reality to fit the belief system.

And how about this - I knew that darned Patriot Act would be good for something. A little known amendment last year waived the 120 day rule for interim U.S. attorney appointments, meaning that when a U.S. attorney is forced out or resigns, his replacement is there for the duration of the president's term, bypassing the normal process of Senate confimation:

Quote

Ryan is one of 11 top federal prosecutors who have resigned or announced their resignations since an obscure provision in the USA Patriot Act reauthorization last year enabled the U.S. attorney general to appoint replacements without Senate confirmation. Carol Lam, who headed California's Southern District, also announced Tuesday she would be leaving.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat, complained on the Senate floor Tuesday that the White House is using the provision to oust Ryan, Lam and other federal prosecutors and replace them with Republican allies.
"The Bush administration is pushing out U.S. attorneys from across the country under the cloak of secrecy and then appointing indefinite replacements," Feinstein said.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales denied the claim, saying administration officials "in no way politicize these decisions."

Of course, bypassing Senate confirmation and appointing whom you want in no way politicizes the decisions - another form of reality creation.

[RedSpawn]

pbleighton, on 2006-December-19, 09:27, said:

"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine...9e162076ei=5090

One has to wonder. . . .exactly what reality has our U.S. government created from 2000-17 and while we are busy trying to reconcile its reality back to the one we live on Main Street, It is off to the races to create another reality.

I think a solid case can be made that America of 2017 is not the same America of 2000 in terms of freedoms.

Aye Yai Yai!

And here is the philosophical rub:

If the government is in the business of creating its own reality, is it a conspiracy when one presents fact-based evidence that dispels the underlying principles of that reality? Does sovereignty give the government permission to create political realities that knowingly violate the Constitution and undermine the rights of Man?

And if someone questions said violation are they labeled dissident, unpatriotic or a nutjob?