Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWisconsin Senator Russ Feingold has not had much to celebrate when it comes to the actions of the executive branch since he came to the Senate almost two decades ago.
The maverick Democrat was a frequent critic of the Clinton administration -- he was the only member of his party to support continuing the impeachment trial of his party's previous president -- and a steady critic of the Bush administration.
But Feingold, the chair of the Constitution subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says he is seeing some change he can believe in.
Noting President Barack Obama's decision to issue executive orders to end abusive interrogation tactics, close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and end the Bush Administration program of CIA detentions, as well as executive orders to increase transparency and err on the side of governmental openness rather than secrecy, Feingold says, "President Obama's first days in office have been a triumph for the rule of law. His executive orders yesterday to reverse the secretive practices of the previous administration and the ones he signed today to end abusive interrogation tactics, bring detentions within the law, and close Guantanamo within a year are all critical steps toward undoing the damage done over the last eight years."
Feingold's a realist about the daunting tasks that remain. He knows that, even as he and groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union press Obama to adopt a pro-Constitution path, there will be pressures from others -- including some Democrats -- to retain some elements of the unitary-executive approach of the Bush-Cheney years.
But, the Wisconsin Democrat says, "While this is a great start to restoring our Constitution, there is still much to be done. I look forward to working with President Obama to put our country back on the right path."
To that end, even as Feingold hailed Obama's initial moves, the senator renewed his call -- first outlined in a December 10 letter to Obama -- for the president to take unilateral steps to to restore the rule of law.
An unreasonable demand? Not at all.
Indeed, Feingold notes, Obama has already done a number of the things the senator proposed in the December 10 letter/
To wit:
· Commit to enforcing the ban on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and revoke all existing orders and legal opinions authorizing cruel interrogations. President Obama's order today requires all agencies of the U.S. government, including the CIA, to abide by the Army Field Manual's guidance concerning interrogations.
· Close the facility at Guantanamo Bay as President Obama had pledged to do during the campaign. President Obama today ordered that Guantanamo will be closed within a year.
· Reject the flawed military commission trial system being used at Guantanamo Bay. President Obama issued an executive order yesterday suspending all trials at Guantanamo Bay for 120 days.
· Commit to providing timely notification of and access to the International Committee of the Red Cross for any and all detainees held in U.S. custody anywhere in the world. Today, President Obama issued an executive order ending illegal CIA detentions and allowing ICRC access to anyone held in custody by the U.S. government. In addition, the executive order on Guantanamo provides that the treatment of prisoners must conform to all applicable laws, including the Geneva Conventions.
· Reinstate the presumption of disclosure established by the Clinton administration to defend an agency's decision to withhold a document only if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would be harmful to an interest protected by one of the Freedom of Information Act's exemptions. President Obama accepted that recommendation in his announcement yesterday concerning transparency and disclosure.
Feingold is right to say that is not enough.
But he is also right to celebrate what looks to be a very good start at restoring the rule of law.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
I think Prez Obama is starting off well for his few days in office and I just hope it continues. Such a difference in how he handles the press and things in general, looks and acts the part instead of being a bumbling fool who doesn't know what is going on!!!
Posted by Caj at 01/23/2009 @ 08:42am
obama has one herculean task after another. at some point he will stumble, but so what? he IS only human.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2009 @ 08:51am
The squealing of the Right over ending torture and closing Gitmo should be a good indicator that...Obama's on the right track.
(Of course, their selective amnesia also plays a part, given they seem to keep forgetting that MCCAIN also promised he would close Gitmo!)
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 09:04am
great news. now it's time for "others" on the payroll to clean up their act:
Israel admits torture
An actor demonstrates a technique called the banana
An official Israeli report has acknowledged for the first time that the Israeli security service tortured detainees during the Palestinian uprising, the Intifada, between 1988 and 1992.
The report, written five years ago but kept secret until now, said the leadership of the security service Shin Bet knew about the torture but did nothing to stop it.
The report did not detail the torture methods used, but human rights organisations say some detainees died or were left paralysed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/637293.stm
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2009 @ 09:27am
hey guys. i've figured out sjchermak's real identity.
he's major frank burns.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2009 @ 09:40am
The report did not detail the torture methods used, but human rights organisations say some detainees died or were left paralysed.----Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2009 @ 09:27am
Uh-oh, that's going to be a tough circle to square for the pro-torture Right. Given their excuse is "It's not 'torture' if it doesn't do any PERMANENT damage!"
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 09:41am
In other words, Mr. Obama's Inaugural line that "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" was itself misrepresenting the choices his predecessor was forced to make. At least President Bush was candid about the practical realities of preventing mass casualties in the U.S.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/23/2009 @ 10:02am
Torture is torture, regardless of why it is performed. Will the cowards that are responsible for the crimes committed dare to travel abroad now that they're no longer in office? Once Jr or Cheney or Rumsfeld leave the US, they're subject to international law.
Posted by mtspence05 at 01/23/2009 @ 10:28am
So, Larry, you think torture is okay?
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 10:31am
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2009 @ 09:40am
Could be....doesn't this sound like something SJCHER would say?-
"The way I see it, unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free."---Maj. Frank Burns "MASH"
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 10:33am
Why would they even want to go to those countries?
Xenophobe. or less polite, whattanass.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 10:35am
How's the banking business?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/23/2009 @ 10:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
Me a banker? No, not me. It's funny how the criminals responsible for this economic disaster, the bankers, are not going to do any time for their actions. Different laws for different people, I guess.
Posted by mtspence05 at 01/23/2009 @ 10:49am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/23/2009 @ 10:55am | ignore this person | warn this person
again the big lie. what the military does is waterboarding lite. at no time is the life of our soldiers threatened.
I have given analogies in the past. it's like playing russian roulette with NO bullets in the gun.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 10:57am
You know that I'm on record here as being against torture.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/23/2009 @ 10:55am | ignore this person | warn this person
Yet you supported a government that indulged in the practise.
Posted by mtspence05 at 01/23/2009 @ 10:58am
"And I've said that Waterboarding is done to some in the military (depending on their duties and potential deployments) to prep them in case they are captured."
So if the enemy might use it on you - it's okay to use it on them!
Posted by urmygyro at 01/23/2009 @ 10:58am
Posted by urmygyro at 01/23/2009 @ 10:58am | ignore this person | warn this person
we're number one.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 11:04am
From Mother Jones:
" "You rolled the dice that you'd win, and you lost." That's what Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola told lawyers for the Bush administration at a hearing on Wednesday afternoon in the ongoing case over millions of missing White House emails. By this he meant that if the White House had followed the recommendations [PDF] that the judge had laid out last April--suggesting that the administration search workstations and portable media devices for the missing messages--it might not be in its current predicament. Instead, Bush officials apparently gambled that they would be able to get the case thrown out, an effort that was rebuffed in November. That bet came back to haunt the administration on Wednesday morning when, with days left before Bush officials vacate the White House, it was hit with a last-minute order (issued by Judge Henry Kennedy, who's also presiding over aspects of the case) to search workstations and collect portable memory devices containing saved emails from departing staffers."
Posted by crabwalk at 01/23/2009 @ 11:04am
Frank: The man is not normal! Hawkeye: What's normal, Frank? Frank: Normal is everybody doing the same thing. Trapper: What about individuality? Frank: Well, individuality is fine--as long as we all do it together.
••
Frank: When are you gonna learn about Chinese treachery? Didn't Pearl Harbor teach you anything?
••
Frank: Lemmings must be directed to the sea.
••
Frank: I'm only paranoid because everyone's against me!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2009 @ 11:05am
Different laws for different people, I guess.
Posted by mtspence05 at 01/23/2009 @ 10:49am
welcome to earth.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2009 @ 11:06am
The American people are still only sheeple. They love waving flags and the glitter and pomp of spectacle.But if they really imagine the rest of the world will welcome them back with open arms just because Obama merely halts Bush's illegal policies and implements corrective ones from now on, but without punishing the war criminals who ordered those policies in the first place, they will be in for a rude shock.
The rest of the world knows all too well that one day there will be another president who may well return to Bush's dictatorial policies because there was no investigation, trials and conviction of the Bush administration's war crimes. And that includes a need to investigate 9/11, because every single thing Bush said and did reverted back to that fateful day.
We still don't know why the 9/11 Commission ignored the testimony of scores of firemen on that day. We still don't know why the motivation for the both the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the WTC is still been ignored viz: America's one-sidedness towards Israel; Don't we ever learn? The rest of the world sees us ignore those issues and sees us as a risk.
Americans love hiding their heads in the sand.They think talking about a crematorium at Abu Ghraib is too disturbing and "let's move forward". We are digging our own graves if we do not have accountability. No country in the world would want to invest in an America which has so much contempt for the Rule of Law that it cannot oversee itself. Because it WILL happen again if there is no accountability.
The Europeans I meet when I travel to Europe all say that America deserves its fate because we re-elected George Bush. They have nothing but scorn for our arrogance more than anything else.
They are correct
Posted by mystic7 at 01/23/2009 @ 11:09am
President Obama overturns Bush's executive order 13233, which set forth the policy that former president, vice president and/or their heirs could deny the citizens access to public records regarding the presidents office.
"[T]he Executive Order on Presidential Records brings those principles [of openness and transparency] to presidential records by giving the American people greater access to these historic documents. This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution."
Posted by crabwalk at 01/23/2009 @ 11:10am
the hour when the ship comes in.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 11:15am
You know that I'm on record here as being against torture.
The problem comes from defining torture. Many on the left (I believe yourself included, add sleep deprivation, temperature extremes and bad music among the list; I don't). And I've said that Waterboarding is done to some in the military (depending on their duties and potential deployments) to prep them in case they are captured. Or at least it used to be when I was in the military.
Posted by colonel flagg at 01/23/2009 @ 10:55am
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2009 @ 11:20am
We still don't know why the motivation for the both the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the WTC is still been ignored viz: America's one-sidedness towards Israel; Don't we ever learn? The rest of the world sees us ignore those issues and sees us as a risk.
Posted by mystic7 at 01/23/2009 @ 11:09am
ssssshhhhhhhh.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2009 @ 11:22am
I am the wind
Posted by colonel flagg at 01/23/2009
The wind just broke his leg
Posted by Capt Hawkeye Pierce
---
Hotlips or Lt Dish?
Posted by crabwalk at 01/23/2009 @ 11:45am
If you libs are bringing M*A*S*H into this, then you are more like B.J. Hunnicut ---
In real life that is Mike Farrell
He is an "activist"
Activist is usually just a synonym for the word liberal, as is the word progressive.
Which is the case in his case.
http://www.mikefarrell.org/index.html
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:09pm
mystic7 says:
" We still don't know why the motivation for the both the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the WTC is still been ignored viz: America's one-sidedness towards Israel; Don't we ever learn? The rest of the world sees us ignore those issues and sees us as a risk. "
1. But then what are the reasons for the attacks on India? Are they because of Israel?
2. What are the reasons for the hissy fits thrown (and rioting and people killed) because of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper? Are they because of Israel?
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:13pm
Mask talks about " The squealing of the Right over ending torture and closing Gitmo "
But what about the squealing of the people as they are dying in a future terrorist attack that only happened because we didn't find out about the terrorists' plans - because we "ended torture" and we closed Gitmo?
Did you consider that possibility, Mask?
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:17pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
grrr, kill, kill
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 12:18pm
emile,
The "grrr, kill, kill" doesn't address the issues or solve the problems
1. people hate us and want us dead
2. They actively working towards achieving that goal
3. The fact they hate us is not our fault or of our making.
Your comment just puts everybody on notice that you, as a Progressive:
1. "know better"
2. "know that war is not the answer"
3. you "know that these people are enraged because they have been oppressed"
4. you "know that it is America's fault (under George W. Bush), or Israels fault or a combination therof
But what you know won't solve the problem that:
1. people hate us and want us dead
2. They actively working towards achieving that goal
3. The fact they hate us is not our fault or of our making.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:30pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/23/2009 @ 10:55am
Okay, so do you define what Israel did...that ended up with dead or paralyzed Palestinians...as "torture"?
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 12:33pm
they will attack us because we ended torture. yeah right.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 12:34pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:17pm
SJ, who'd you vote for last November and what was HIS take on closing Gitmo?
Answer?---we know.
Now, move along, you're irrelevant on THIS issue too (along with global warming).
Maybe Arctic Prom Queen Granny will promise to RE-open it in 2012....heheh
Also Margaret called from Tokyo, she's marrying Penobscot.
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 12:38pm
emile,
You say " they will attack us because we ended torture. yeah right. "
They would attack us because we did not find out, from them, ahead of time about what they know about a potential attack or people who are capable of doing an attack.
And we may not find out ahead of time, from them, because mechanisms necessary to make that happen may not be allowed or used.
These actions that have been so thouroughly condemned by the political left may have been instrumental in the U.S. finding out about potential attacks that then did not happen.
So without them we may have been attacked again by now.
Why would that have been OK?
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:43pm
Mask,
OK.
Don't forget - you haven't refuted the issues... just stated your opinion....
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:45pm
Okay, so do you define what Israel did...that ended up with dead or paralyzed Palestinians...as "torture"?
Yes...or possibly murder of civilians. Good greif, do we really need to quibble over the obvious? We as a nation of free citizens, seem to have lost our way...
Richard
Posted by tea at 01/23/2009 @ 12:47pm
These actions that have been so thouroughly condemned by the political left may have been instrumental in the U.S. finding out about potential attacks that then did not happen.
this has not been proven. asserted yes, but not proven. stop watching 24 and read a book.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 12:54pm
sjchermak wrote:
"1. people hate us and want us dead.
2. they are actively working towards achieving that goal.
3. the fact they hate us is not a fact of our own making"
hmmm....
this short list could have been written by the Indians hundreds of years ago in the very land we occupy now.
Watch out, the white christian man is coming--with guns and disease--and he wants this land--and he ain't friendly!
Posted by urmygyro at 01/23/2009 @ 1:02pm
Why would that have been OK? Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:43pm
i bet you can't wait to stick a broom up a towelheads rectum.
¿right?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2009 @ 1:16pm
"The problem comes from defining torture"(frostyzoom) I don;t know the answer to that. I consider rap music torture, or having a tooth pulled with insufficient anesthetic, but many would say that there has to be some adverse medical effect to be considered torture, and that should not be confined to something potentially fatal. I think breaking a shin bone with a lead pipee is torture even if it is not fatal. I recently read that a judge considered the CUMULATIVE and PERSISTENT effects of seemingly "normal" techniques as torture because the victim's pulse dropped to below 34/minute. So if sleep deprivation results in a pulse rate that drops from 84 to 35, that would be considered torture.It's like porn: You know it when you see it.
Posted by mystic7 at 01/23/2009 @ 1:20pm
3. The fact they hate us is not our fault or of our making. Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:30pm
you are such a dolt.
In the context of Iranian hostility and mistrust toward British and Russian policies, the Iranian government sought an impartial power that would control imperialist British aspirations in that region. In his letter of October 5 1918, to the Secretary of State, the Iranian chargé d'affaires in Washington, Mirza Ali-Qoli-Khan, expressed his disappointments over British and Russian hostilities in Iran, and sought a way to ensure against a recurrence of such hopeless conditions after the war. GREATLY ELATED BY PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON'S "FOURTEEN POINTS", THE IRANIAN CHARGÉ CONTINUED: «WE HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE THAT THE GREAT PRINCIPLES OF HUMANITY AND JUSTICE ENUNCIATED BY YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL IN THE DAY OF PEACE EXTEND THEIR BLESSINGS TOWARDS PERSIA, AS ONE OF THE COUNTRIES WHICH HAS ENDURED LONG YEARS OF MANIFOLD TRIALS WITH PATIENCE AND LONG SUFFERING.»
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2009 @ 1:21pm
"The problem comes from defining torture"(frostyzoom)
Posted by mystic7 at 01/23/2009 @ 1:20pm
uh, that was rev. clusterbomb, not i.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2009 @ 1:22pm
On the other hand, hoping to weaken the regime of the British, THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT DID WHAT IT COULD AFTER WORLD WAR I TO BUILD CONTACTS WITH THE UNITED STATES. Iranians hoped to put an end to the Anglo-Russian economic domination of their country. The government realized that this could be achieved with pure American capital, free from British intrigues. During the controversy over the concessions in the northern provinces of Iran, tHE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT IMPLICITLY AND EXPLICITLY ENCOURAGED AMERICAN CAPITAL TO GET INTERVENED IN THOSE CONCESSIONS. In August of 1920, the United States Secretary of State dispatched a letter to the ambassador of the United States in Iran John Caldwell:
The Persian Minister at Washington has stated orally that British companies are working to acquire oil concessions in the northern provinces, but that his government would prefer to grant these concessions to American rather than to other foreign interests.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2009 @ 1:27pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:45pm
Ignoring the hypocrisy of that attack...
Actually I refuted your RELEVANCE to the issue.
John McCain refuted you on the issue last fall.
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 1:30pm
Last night Amy Goodman (my heroine, an angel) on Democracy Now presented a heartbreaking interview with a young Palestinian man (who lives in America) who lost two brothers in the recent Gazan assault by Israel; One of the brothers was shot dead outright but the other was shot only in the leg and would have survived had he been able to get medical aid. There were medics on the scene, but the Israeli soldiers refused to allow the victim to get aid, refused ambulances to reach him FOR TWENTY HOURS, even refused him to move into his car because it would have been warmer, and he bled to death. The father, injured only, witnessed the entire nightmare. There were other witnesses. You can watch this heart-wrenching interview here:
http://i1.democracynow.org/2009/1/22/part_ii_palestinian_us_college_grad
I had tears running down my face throughout. It is harrowing to watch his grief and his pain. Israel regards all international law like the Geneva Conventions with contempt; It is beyond torture, but outright and cold blooded murder. I urge everyone to watch this interview.The Israeli soldiers who watched and allowed this man to bleed to death are sub-human.
Posted by mystic7 at 01/23/2009 @ 1:40pm
"The unfine print of Mr. Obama's order is that he's allowed room for what might be called a Jack Bauer exception. It creates a committee to study whether the Field Manual techniques are too limiting "when employed by departments or agencies outside the military." Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/23/2009 @ 10:02am
The military itself routinely revaluates the Army Field Manual techniques that are employed. So for Obama to leave that option open is not only reasonable but necessary for the military to review their procedures. Both the right and the left are pointing their collective finger at it as if it means something. In this case there is no there, there.
Also, I can't even bring myself to engage sjchermak anymore. There is so much wrongheaded in his posts that it would take to much work for no gain to even respond. At least LVL still remains in a reality I can respond to... I guess that sort of a left handed compliment.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/23/2009 @ 1:46pm
It's like porn: You know it when you see it. Posted by mystic7 at 01/23/2009 @ 1:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
no it's not. torture is defined clearly in US and international law.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 2:04pm
How about torturing the US criminals (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) who were responsible for murdering over a million Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians, etc...? The world is entitled to know whether the Sobs' are still holding relevant information which may save some innocent lives around the world. The problem with guys like sjchermak is that they view the world from the narrow crack between their legs. They claim moral high ground in screwing other people while expecting the screwed to shower them with flowers for their criminal generosity.
Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 2:05pm
sj, I don't believe that people hate us for our "freedom" but for our insistence on Empire and associated policies like mindless support of Israel. Despite my own Jewish background, I have always opposed both the Empire and many of its policies.
We will not get past the danger presented by terrorists until we change our foreign policy to respect the needs of other people. We will not regain international respect until we accept the need to abide by international norms. A person in pain will tell the torturer what he/she wants to hear. Thus, torture is not only immoral but impractical. I believe we would have avoided the 9/11 attack not only if Bush and his cronies had paid attention to clear warnings but if we hadn't been busy bullying various nations and encouraging Israel to do as it pleased.
If Gore spoke as indicated in the Clarke quote, shame on him. There can be no excuse for torture approval, overt or covert--we'll just have to find other ways of questioning people within limits. The only long-term solution is a progressive foreign policy which the rest of the world can accept.
Posted by mimsky at 01/23/2009 @ 2:07pm
SJ, Mike Farrel was right about Iraqi WMD's,
How about you?
Are you still clinging to the belief that the 270 people released from GITMO have pocket nukes?
Has there been a "dirty bomb" scenario in which Jack Bauer techniques have proved to be the only way to save the country from such an attack? Or is that just your way of justifying revenge against third parties that had nothing to do with 9/11?
-----
another neo-conundrum:
According to many neo-cons, the CIA is full of liberals.
The Army has a field Manual on Interrogation, and that Manual forbids harsh interrogation, relying on tried and true methods of winning over your subject to gain the most reliable information.
The cons worship the Army.
In this instance though they choose to go along with the liberals in tha CIA.
Why?
Fear. Testosterone. A desire to cause someone harm to gain a feeling of vengeance.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/23/2009 @ 2:13pm
Posted by mimsky at 01/23/2009 @ 2:07pm
Good post.
Terrorism is by definition political; that is, it is a tactic used to further or gain POLITICAL ends; terrorism cannot be separated from the political ends/issues/context that it swims in. The only solution to the terrorist threat is to address the political issues/problems that fuel such terrorism. In other words, solve the underlying political dispute, and the whole question of terrorism will dissipate.
However, here is a problem: what if the political grievances or ends for which whatever terrorist group is fighting are unreasonable or extreme, and by definition, we cannot give? (Such as, for example, the destruction or end of our country.) What if there is NO political solution? Groups such as Al Queda are not exactly amenable to compromise solutions either.
That may be the case with groups like Al Queda - their political (and other) demands may be things that by definition we cannot give.
In other words, yes, politics clearly drives such anti-American terrorist groups as Al Queda, but the extreme nature of their political demands/goals may make it such that any attempt to address such demands/goals is fruitless.
Though, there is another pov that states that, if they get SOME of what they want (such as a moderation of the American policy of virtualy unconditionally support of Israel, or a Palestinian state) that support for Al Queada will dry up.
But in either case, it is clear (or should be) that one cannot address the problem of terrorism without looking at the underlying political issues inherently connected to it.
Posted by FDR43 at 01/23/2009 @ 2:40pm
As long as the yahoos in the republican party and on talk radio, Fox News and the conservative press keep ranting and raving about the changes taking place in the Obama administration, we can be certain that the president is doing what's right. In other words, he is restoring the rule of law after eight long years of corruption, gross incompetence and criminality.
Posted by maggie2 at 01/23/2009 @ 2:42pm
"At least President Bush was candid about the practical realities of preventing mass casualties in the U.S."
in other words: president bush broke the law, lied about it, and then later admitted it. so, if you want to call that "candid," then go right ahead.
Posted by darladoon at 01/23/2009 @ 2:43pm
Maggie, I agree:
If the right is up in arms, chances are, Obama is doing some good things.
Fox and Co. are like a reverse barometer: the madder they get, the better the country is.
Posted by FDR43 at 01/23/2009 @ 2:44pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/23/2009 @ 2:45pm
It has to do with you answering the question, Larry.
And even if it was proven to YOUR satisfaction (which is of course impossible unless Netanyahu or the Jerusalem Post admits it), that Israel did maim even kill prisoners...
wouldn't you say that WE (the U.S.) should follow the same standard as Israel on "intensive interrogation" to protect ourselves? Especially if "it worked"?
If not, why not?
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 2:53pm
They would attack us because we did not find out, from them, ahead of time about what they know about a potential attack or people who are capable of doing an attack.
And we may not find out ahead of time, from them, because mechanisms necessary to make that happen may not be allowed or used.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:43pm
---- "The potential mechanisms and effects of using coercive techniques or torture for gaining accurate, useful information from an uncooperative source are much more complex than is commonly assumed. There is little or no research to indicate whether such techniques succeed in the manner and contexts in which they are applied. Anecdotal accounts and opinions based on personal experiences are mixed, but the preponderance of reports seems to weigh against their effectiveness."
Educing Information Interrogation: Science and Art Foundations for the Future National Defense Intelligence College -http://tinyurl.com/yq5mfd
Posted by FLaim at 01/23/2009 @ 3:09pm
Mask,
You said " Also Margaret called from Tokyo, she's marrying Penobscot. "
Mask, you are way behind on this - don't tell me you just found out now!
She has long since married him and then divorced him.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 3:35pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 3:35pm
True, and you're already shipped home to your $35,000 car and two homes when you went looney in Tokyo.
So...when does Winchester show up? Less vapidly idiotic, more humane, and capable of non-dogmatic thought?
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 3:44pm
we don't need no Geneva convention, or any of the treaties we entered into, right?
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 5:28pm
mimsky
You commented " sj, I don't believe that people hate us for our "freedom" but for our insistence on Empire and associated policies like mindless support of Israel. "
Our way of life is not compatible with their way - they don't like that - they want societies where women are suppressed and everybody adheres to Islam.
It may not be the only factor in why they hate us, but it is a major factor.
They do hate us because of support for Israel. Israel is right, and those who oppose it are wrong.
So, their hatred of us because of our support of Israel is wrong.
As far as Empire - there is no American Empire. That is a myth promoted in places such as The Nation.
If you look at "Empires" in past times, and compare it to our interaction in the world today, you see there is no comparison.
Whereever we are involved in the world, we do not exert control the way an Empire would.
We defeated Japan and Germany in World War II, and we certainly don't control those countries now, or have any influence over their actions on the international stage.
We don't take Iraqi oil for ourselves.
It is said that bin Laden hated us because we had troops in Saudi Arabia, where Mecca is. We were seen as infidels who were defacing a "holy land" just by being in Saudi Arabia.
The conclusion you would see reached here by many is that we have another American wrong - we caused bin Laden to be angry.
But actually, the situation is reverse. One has to ask the question, why was it wrong (in bin Laden's mind) for us to be there to begin with?
Obviously, he hated us to start with.
Somebody that didn't hate us to begin with would not likely be angry because we had troops there, in part to protect the Saudis.
So he does hate us for who we are.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 6:05pm
Mask,
You asked " So...when does Winchester show up? Less vapidly idiotic, more humane, and capable of non-dogmatic thought? "
You assume too much if you assume Charles Emerson Winchester (who Hawkeye called Chuck) would be in favor of appeasement, self blame, and capitulation to terrorists.
If somebody was ticked off at Winchester, there is absolutely no way he would have shrugged his shoulders and said, "It is my fault, I made him angry"
You must have missed the episode where he and Hawkeye went to the office of an U.S. consular official in Seoul to try and arrange some help for a Korean child whose father had been an American soldier and whose mother had been a native Korean - and got stonewalling from the bureaucrat at that office.
Winchester was quite pissed and in a fighting mood, and Hawkeye had to hold him back from punching the official out.
That is not the behavior advocated by many here on The Nation.
You assume too much to assume Winchester would be compatible with your views!
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 6:13pm
3. The fact they hate us is not our fault or of our making. Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:30pm
I promised to never call you an assclown. I just won't do it. Nobody deserves to be called an assclown, even if their actions reflect that reality. So, in keeping with my philosophy of fairness, let it be noted that, today, I did NOT call CHERMAK an assclown.
An assclown might be defined as someone who makes statements that are patently false, or ludicrous, or unfairly judgmental; it might also be a person who rants, hurling bitter partisan invective at those that they perceive to be misinformed or uneducated about a particular topic. An assclown may also be a person who refuses discourse for the most part in favor of derisive, name calling diatribes, which might involve calling someone an assclown for instance, hijacking the discussion as a means to bolster their own feelings of inferiority.
I have searched in vain for a technical description and definition of assclown, but assclown seems to be missing from all online dictionaries. All I get it is 'Assclown cannot be found'. Suffice it to say, that the word assclown is a slang reference to some of the above characteristics, but lacking any further foundation, I heretofore eschew the usage of this term, assclown, particularly in regards to the blogger CHERMAK.
One must, after all, stick to facts and not engage in unsubstantiated assertions, or statements that are clearly ridiculous and false, much like an assclown would.
Posted by ficheye at 01/23/2009 @ 6:33pm
" they want societies where women are suppressed and everybody adheres to Islam."
they want this in their country, like our ally Saudi. not over here. how is that our affair?
"As far as Empire - there is no American Empire. That is a myth promoted in places such as The Nation."
troops stationed in 100 countries. invading countries at will. that's us.
"It is said that bin Laden hated us because we had troops in Saudi Arabia, where Mecca is. We were seen as infidels who were defacing a "holy land" just by being in Saudi Arabia."
there was no reason to keep the troops there since '91. who was gonna attack Saudi? Saddam ? he had no capacity to do so. they hate us for what we do.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 6:37pm
OK, ficheye,
Then lay out for me exactly how rioting and killing of innocents by people who are upset because of pictures of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper are of OUR making?
Or for that matter, the publisher of the newspaper in Demmarks' making? Most people in the world understand that they may encounter stuff from time to time that offends them, but when they do they do not riot and kill people and seek revenge.
We will just take one example for now. How was THAT of anybodys' making except of the people filled with rage at cartoons in a newspaper?
If anybody behaved that way in their personal life, and not with the whole scope of international politics, religion, etc. wrapped around it, most people would agree that type of behavior was not normal.
I understand your frustration.
Most on this site feel we are to blame for some of these people's anger, and they point out how there are so many disconnected groups with different issues and there is no real problem or theme such as "Islamofacism" or "Radical Islam".
And they will cite some events in the past, maybe back to the early 20th century, where actions by powers such as Britian or the United States in one part of the Middle East is to blame for the anger today.
Or they will crucify Israel and Americans who support Israel, or AIPAC, or whatever.
And they demand George W. Bush's head on a silver platter for promoting there is a problem and we need to do something about it.
So you get somebody like me, or the others here like me, and it is frustrating for you to have to deal with us ingoramuses.
But - could you explain to me why people are justified in throwing fits over Danish cartoons, and how it is anybodys' fault other than theirs?
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 6:49pm
Ficheye,
If I got straight answers to questions I pose, like my question above, then maybe I would not editorialize as much.
But I don't get straight answers very often.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 6:51pm
emile,
Having military in Saudi Arabia did not mean we control or rule Saudi Arabia.
Empires are where countries rule over areas other than their own country.
We have troops stationed to this day in South Korea. Do we control South Korea? (No we don't)
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 6:53pm
it would be better if we didn't have troops anywhere.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 6:56pm
Ficheye,
You say I should " not engage in unsubstantiated assertions, or statements that are clearly ridiculous and false "
Of course, many on the political left would define anything a conservative says in those terms.
That's where your whole argument falls apart, because you really want me to pre-censor myself.
Rather than debating the specific points I make, you are just lecturing me on my discourse, again.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 6:57pm
But - could you explain to me why people are justified in throwing fits over Danish cartoons, and how it is anybodys' fault other than theirs? Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 6:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
no one said they were justified. people riot over all kinds of things all over the world. these riots have no geo political significance.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 7:00pm
emile,
Sometimes, having troops keeps bad people from doing bad things (deterence).
People do have to defend themselves from time to time, and if having troops present discourages attacks in the first place, then that means less loss of life or suffering - than would occur when you are having to defend yourself.
From the beginning of this planet, people have been waging war against each other.
No one has figured out any magic formula yet for total peace on earth, to create it where no one wishes harm against another.
Until that day comes you do have to defend yourself if necessary and it is wise to deter attacks if you can.
I know, it is here now (the day of the ability of total peace on earth) - Barack Obama has the answer.
In my statement above I was engaging in some sarcasm.... Okay... you libs do not have to froth at the mouth in anger at that.... save your energy and relax.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 7:05pm
One has to ask the question, why was it wrong (in bin Laden's mind) for us to be there to begin with?
Bin Laden wants to overthrow the family dictatorship in his country Saudi.the US protects saudi, not least with the huge force they left there in '91. after 9/11 Bush withdrew the troops. this confirms my view of the situation.
had we withdrawn the troops before 9/11, the attack would likely not have happened.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 7:05pm
emile,
The riots over Danish cartoons do have a geo political significance.
This was not a local riot, in fact much of the angst occurred far from Denmark.
And it is just one example of the same type of behavior, or worse, elsewhere.
What about the terror attacks in India. Why were we to blame for that?
Many of these incidents are because of a local axe to grind on supposedly local issues.
But, somehow, isn't it amazing that all these disconnected events have a common theme?
But I am not supposed to mention that, because then I am racist or Islamophobic.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 7:09pm
If we hadn't withdrawn troops from and given up in Somalia, then maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
That is because bin Laden viewed us as a paper tiger who would give up when the going got tough.
So he was emboldened to commit 9/11 because he believed we would not be willing to fight back for long, we would not be able to stay with things when the going got tough, and people like him could outlast us.
So it is the opposite of what you say.
You say bin Laden wanted to overthrow the dictatorship in Saudi, no doubt true. And that we protect them. The dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is not good, but bin Laden would not be any better, in any way.
So if he was angry at us, he was wrong.
We should not be removing troops to placate somebody who is wrong and who would have made things worse in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 7:15pm
People do have to defend themselves from time to time,
whom are we defending in germany and japan? against whom? we have troops in the phillippines. whom are we fighting there. troops all over the world. why? I think we encourage war. since we are the world's number one arms dealers.
I will not dialogue with posters you say "you libs"
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 7:18pm
That is because bin Laden viewed us as a paper tiger who would give up when the going got tough.
nonsense. what is your source?
We should not be removing troops to placate somebody who is wrong and who would have made things worse in Saudi Arabia.
but we did, we did. no doubt at the request of the saudis
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 7:20pm
But - could you explain to me why people are justified in throwing fits over Danish cartoons, and how it is anybodys' fault other than theirs? Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 6:49pm
sjchermak,
It is comic when what, appear to be, a Zionist like you can't understand why people raise their fists in indignation. Your friends at the spy agency AIPAC have just asked for Jimmy Carter's head for just writing a book. Your beloved Israeli lobby has a long track record of premeditated hatred and revenge against those who merely uttered mild criticism of the Israeli's racist agenda. If you don't understand what I mean, I can get into the ugly specifics.
Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 7:22pm
emile,
How bin Laden and others viewed us is a general consensus that has been discussed often, by people whose opinions you would reject. There is no once source, I could go and search links to people who have spoken about this, and about how he no doubt did not expect us to fight back after 9/11.
But what would be the point, nothing I provide will be accepted by you.
Your worldview is also a consensus among poeple whose opinions I would reject. You have no one source for that either.
So we are just, as always, going in circles with this.
By the way, knock off the commands as to how I should conduct my discourse.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 7:31pm
Your friends at the spy agency AIPAC have just asked for Jimmy Carter's head for just writing a book.
not literally.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 7:36pm
CripThink,
A Zionist like me did happen to notice that "people" did more than "raise their fists in indignation"
They killed people. A little different.
For that matter, can you explain why they can't understand that everything in the world can not be to their liking and that it is inappropriate to get into the lather they do over cartoons in a newspaper?
Do you remember crucifix in urine?
There was a display in an art museum in New York City where somebody displayed a crucifix in a jar of urine. This was supposedly art.
To a devout Catholic, that could be quite offensive.
But those people were told, hey, this is art, get over it.
Since this was a public museum, there was a question that, yes, we have free speech in this country, but does the public have to pay for some things, and should the funding for this exhibit of "art" be cut off?
CENSORSHIP!! screamed some people. You can't do that, it would be censorship!
So, the people who were offended by crucifix in urine were told if they were offended too bad, and get out their wallets and fork over tax money to pay for it besides.
If people are supposed to overlook crucifix in urine when it offends them, then why are we supposed to "understand why people raise their fists in indignation" (and kill people, too) because of Danish cartoons?
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 7:39pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009
sjchermak,
Why not apply the same noble freedom of speech you are advocating to allow valid criticism of Israel in the US? I bet that you would the first to cry Anti-Semitism.
Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 7:57pm
"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
Oh yeah-- what does that ever get you...
Not on the wrong side of torture.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/23/2009 @ 8:00pm
<i>Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 7:57pm </i>
I hate to add to the chorus, but your non-responsiveness to the question is awfully glaring. The question had absolutely nothing to do with Israel, and yet you try to do everything in your power to MAKE it about Israel.
Moreover, your response about Israel doesn't even make any sense. Neither Chermak nor anyone else on this blog (nor anyone I know of, for that matter) has proposed censoring the expression of those who criticize Israel. Some of us may be a little suspicious of those who argue that Israel has willingly created apartheid, but still no one here has taken the extra step to censor. You know what else no one here has defended? Killing people who advocate those views.
So let me join Chermak here...why should we overlook murder that's undertaken because of a group of cartoons?
Posted by Thrawn at 01/23/2009 @ 8:18pm
Thrawn,
It is indeed an irony that those fake moralists, who raise valiant claims about human right and freedom of speech, are often silent when it comes to crimes committed by Israel. This double standard has gone on for too long in this country. AIPAC and the Israeli lobby are instrumental in stifling even the mildest criticism of the glaring violations of human dignity committed by Israel. The zealots who stand falsely to defend the Israeli Apartheid and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians are in no moral position to articulate or lecture the rest of us on upholding liberty and the freedom of speech. This point has to be made over and again every time these zealots attempt to utter their deception. It is hardly comforting that you don't advocate the killing of those who criticize Israel; lying on behalf of Israel is as much criminal.
Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 9:12pm
CripThink,
Just like Thrawn is saying, you are flipping issues around here.
Mentioning how people reacted to Danish cartoons or crucifix in urine was not for the purpose of discussing freedom of speech.
It was done to comment on your remark about the ability to understand people who raise their fists in indignation.
I was showing how different groups reacted to a similar kind of event.
And how we are supposed to understand the reaction of one group but the other group is told not to react.
I was pointing out that in my opinion the "indignation" about Danish cartoons was out of order and unwarranted.
Since you did mention freedom of speech, you seem concerned about "allowing criticism of Israel in the US"
Huh?
You ARE criticizing Israel in the U.S! Syfriendly has done that, too.
It seems like it is already being allowed.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 9:13pm
CripThink,
The original purpose also of mention of the Danish cartoons was to point out an example of why Islamofacism (Islamoregression, acording to Ficheye) is real.
I was told above that the cartoon situation was an isolated incident.
But it is an example of the Islamofascism, which has been demonstrated in other forms and other ways.
And it is an important example because another thing I have said is that we did not cause this reaction to the Danish cartoons to occur.
Because another thought among some that do concede a problem with regard to this is that we have contributed to it happening.
I say no to both, it is not isolated and the main circumstance (Islamofacism) is not something we caused.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 9:19pm
The fact they hate us is not our fault or of our making. Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 12:30pm
OK, CHERMAK. I made fun of you because of the above statement. I feel that the United states has done many, many things over the years to anger people in other countries, and some of those places just happen to be of muslim religious affiliation.
To adequately respond to such a generalized fiction like that would take much more space than we're allowed. To be specific, you seem to be referring to muslim extremists who hate us, Al Qaida, and others. On topic? OK. And because of our oil interests, wars of aggression, and other dubious actions on foreign soil, we have come even more to the attention of these people as a focal point for their hatred.
So I think the opposite of what you said; I think that the US has given them, muslims in this case, plenty to be angry about, and also, as the worlds greatest consumer of resources, we are seen in an even dimmer light by those who yearn for some semblance of our standard of living. Many of those happen to be muslim people. But...
I am on record as thinking that the Islamic extremist groups preach an insane doctrine of hate and are backwards thinking religious fanatics. If Islam preaches peace, then why does there seem to be a duplicitous ideology here? The world is confused about that.
I think that there are crazy people who are muslim extremists. They are presently crazier than OUR religious extremists because they kill people who offend them on a more regular basis. But Christians and Catholics, remember, did more than their share long ago. Native peoples on all continents have been decimated in the name of Christianity and western expansionism. By dark example, over time we have helped to create extremism.
Posted by ficheye at 01/23/2009 @ 9:21pm
You ARE criticizing Israel in the U.S! Syfriendly has done that, too. It seems like it is already being allowed. Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 9:13pm
sjchermak,
Yes, allowed to criticize Israel on the pages of the Nation, not on CNN, not on Fox News, the New York Times, not on any so-called mainstream media entity. Not if I decided to run for Congress, not if I decided to run for any high position in our government. Not if I worked in Hollywood, not if I was in Academia. The list of victims who dared to speak out against Israel is very long indeed; it casts a dark shadow on the very fabric of our open society.
Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 9:31pm
ficheye,
I think some of the Muslim world is to blame themselves for their standard of living falling short of what we have.
Maybe not individual ordinary people, to be sure, but their leaders over time, whether they be the rulers of the countries or the spiritual leaders.
My understanding is that a long time ago the Islamic/Muslim world was the most advance civilization on Earth at that time.
A lot of their core concepts now seem to preach things which have caused that to be reversed.
Their countries are not democracies and all people do not have an equal voice in their societies - all necessary to advance the standard of living.
And for some reason they, collectively, as a group, seem to possess a much greater intolerance for people who believe other than they, than any other entity in the world at this time.
Certainly there are a lot of places where people do not tolerate people different than themselves, and that is not good, and here in the U.S. people have worked for years to overcome that.
But the Islamic world seems to possess this to a greater and overt degree than anybody else on Earth as a group.
Certainly there have been many wars and conflicts in the past, many in the name of religion, including conflicts between Christians and Muslims.
But sorry, I think at some point something that happened in the past can not be used as an excuse for rage and anger now. They are only hurting themselves if they are still bent out of shape about the Crusades 1,000 years ago, for example.
You mentioned oil interests as a possible cause of anger. There are some in that region that are doing just fine because of oil. Look at places like Dubai or the UAE. Some people there are wealthy beyond belief. There is nothing to be angry about.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 9:36pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 6:13pm
Didn't say "compatible with my views", SJ.
I'd take a THINKING Rightie like "Thrawn" as "Winchester".
But you ARE "Frank Burns"...a dolt who feeds back jingoistic, simplistic, inane, self-serving bullshit...claims others who are conformists and reactionary are un-patriotic, and who when faced with opposition and roadblocks, huffs and puffs and say something like-
Frank: Another week of command and I'd have had you out of that dress!
Klinger: I'm not that easy.
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 9:55pm
Some people there are wealthy beyond belief. There is nothing to be angry about. Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 9:36pm |
It's true about the oil interests, but just like in the US, because of a border, or a difference in tribal distinction, many more are dirt poor than are rich. Not all indian tribes have casinos. Just those who had startup money, or had land that was on or near a place that 'whitey' had a financial interest in, like land near a freeway. Most are poor.
But on the extremism topic...
Muslims blow themselves and other people up. They simultaneously say yes and no on underage marriage, treatment of women, and violence against the infidel. Did or did not Mohammed marry a nine year old? Conflicting tales abound.
Christians wish for the apocalypse and the rapture, which was invented in the middle ages, and are plagued by high profile hypocrites and sexual deviants, as well as posers who never go to church but spout the dogma because it seems respectable to be religious.
Catholics wildly overpopulate the earth, conduct ceremonies in latin which no one understands, and have killed more native people than any other group, by disease, mutilation and outright warfare. And there is also the pederasty problem. And the sightings of Mary and Jesus in all sorts of natural objects. Potatoes. Water stains.
Spirituality is to be held in high esteem, but religious institutions seem to create internal problems that decay the structure from within. Not always, but often. And that decay accelerates the evolution of extremist dogma in some sects.
Posted by ficheye at 01/23/2009 @ 10:08pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 9:36pm
Sjchermak,
So you benevolent Chermak, you really feel Sorry for the Muslims because their democracies don't meet your standard and they seem not to tolerate other religions. Swell, I did not expect such deception from a well-informed historian like you.
Let's look at the Muslims who are languishing under the occupation boots of your beloved Israel since 1967. The Israelis confiscated their land, demolished their homes, shot their stone-yielding children and imprisoned ten of thousands of them, just for demanding freedom. Matter of fact, your Israeli angles have just murdered 1400 of them in Gaza and wounded 5400, just because it happened that they have freely elected Hamas. And let's look closely at religious co-existence in Israel. Israel, the Jewish only State; the entity that is openly calling for the expulsion of all its Arab citizens so it can maintain its Jewish purity.
Your ancestors should be immensely grateful for the Muslims of Andalusia who shielded Jews and gave them refuge when the Europeans were exterminating them. What the Jews are doing to the Palestinians today can hardly be called a reciprocity of all the Muslims good deeds.
Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 10:19pm
Mask,
Yet another post where you just recycle your opinion.
But I can see you must have been a fan of M*A*S*H.
I enjoyed the show, too, both when it ran originally, and also during the many syndicated reruns over the years.
So I guess we do have something in common.
How about Radar. Who do you equate on these blogs with Radar? Or Colonel Potter? Or Lt. Colonel Henry Blake? Or Father Mulcahy?
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 10:20pm
The list of victims who dared to speak out against Israel is very long indeed; it casts a dark shadow on the very fabric of our open society. Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 9:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
why don't you name a few?
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 10:22pm
shot their stone-yielding children
the word you are looking for is stone wielding
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 10:26pm
CripThink,
Israel occupied the territories in 1967 as defense against the continual string of wars that had been waged against them.
Israel improved the standard of living in Gaza over the years. When Arafat began to promote jihad and intafada, then the standard began to decline to the misery today.
At various points along the way, peace was rejected, and not by Israel.
Remember the Oslo charade?
How about when Ehud Barak offered Arafat just about everything asked for? Arafat's response - REJECTED - followed by jihad and intifada.
You promote that Hamas is freely elected. That's wonderful - freely elected leaders want there to be no Israel and promote the firing of rockets (towards Israel) from civilian populated areas, knowing that when the day came that it would draw Israeli fire back Israel would be condemned for killing children.
Hamas is freely elected, so I suppose the above stuff is OK? (Answer - it is not)
Why didn't the "freely elected leaders" try to build a viable country for their people instead of trying to kill and intimidate people in another one?
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 10:32pm
why don't you name a few? Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009
duBoise,
Here is a partial list; more available upon request:
Cynthia McKinney (House Rep., now Green Party presidential candidate) Earl Hilliard (House Rep.) Charles H. Percy (Senator) Adlai E. Stevenson III (Senator) Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey (House Rep.) J. William Fulbright (Senator) Paul Findley (House Rep.) Walter Huddleston (Senator) Juan Cole (political analyst) James Abourezk (Senator) Noam Chomsky (academic) George W. Ball (Undersecretary of State) Eqbal Ahmad (late) Edward Said (late) John Connally (Texas Governor) Jimmy Carter (former President) Arun Gandhi (founder, M. K. Gandhi Institute) M. Shahid Alam (Professor) Robert Fisk (Journalist) John J. Mearsheimer (academic) Stephen M. Walt (professor) James M. Ennes Jr. (author) Tony Judt (historian) Vanessa Redgrave (actress)
Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 10:39pm
Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 10:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
so how are they victims? were their careers ruined?
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 10:42pm
certainly not Ms. Redgrave, to name just one. you have to flesh this out if you want to be believed.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 10:44pm
so how are they victims? were their careers ruined? Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 10:42pm
duboise,
Why not Google everyone on the list to know why; including actress Vanessa Redgrave. You seem to have an inquisitive mind.
Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 10:52pm
Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 10:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I can't do your home work. from what I've seen Redgrave's career is fine.
you make assertions, YOU have to back them up. otherwise it's just hot air.
I see nothing you suggested in Redgrave's career. if you're wrong in that instance, I assume you you are equally wrong on the others.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 11:01pm
Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 10:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I can't do your home work. from what I've seen Redgrave's career is fine.
you make assertions, YOU have to back them up. otherwise it's just hot air.
I see nothing you suggested in Redgrave's career. if you're wrong in that instance, I assume you you are equally wrong on the others.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 11:01pm
certainly not Ms. Redgrave, to name just one. you have to flesh this out if you want to be believed. Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2009 @ 10:44pm
dubois,
I got another good source for you on the victims of the Israeli Lobby, including Vanessa Redgrave. The article is written by Israel Shamir, an Israeli writer; just to accommodate your Anti-Semitism sensitivity. Welcome to the classroom:
http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=571
Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 11:16pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 10:32pm
sjchermak,
Your Israeli friends presented Hamas with two choices:
1. To die of starvation due to the Israeli Siege since 2005 2. To die of bombardment by the F-16s fighters and the Phosphor Shells
I wonder what would have been your choice if you were in Hamas' place
Posted by CripThink at 01/23/2009 @ 11:38pm
Yet another post where you just recycle your opinion.----Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 10:20pm
I'm sorry....and YOUR posts are...????
Well, I take that back. Actually you recycle RUSH's opinions. ("visit his website once a day" I believe was what you admitted a while back)
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2009 @ 11:57pm
duBois,
Digging into the Israeli Lobby is analogous to digging into a broken sewer; the more you dig the worse the smell gets. Have you finished reading the article:
http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=571
Posted by CripThink at 01/24/2009 @ 12:04am
what victim? you have not shown that she is in any way a victim for her expressed views.
until YOU can show that your assertion has a basis in fact, I remain unconvinced.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 09:06am
this guy also does not show how Redgrave or Pinter were harmed for their expressions. I don't believe him and I don't believe you. he is as tendentious as you are.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 09:12am
the demonization of Aipac is just another version of, the jews did it. they are at fault when america acts badly. it's always the jews' fault.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 09:15am
when I see Hamas celebrating victory, instead of grieving for the dead, my sympathy for them evaporates.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2009 @ 10:23am
de-evolution.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/24/2009 @ 11:10am
There is enough hypocrisy to go around.
Bottom line is that it has to stop.
Just stop.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/24/2009 @ 12:07pm
I listened to the logic of Kit Bond and I don't understand what that man eats for breakfast or how he arrives at his logic. I have also heard the same kind of "Let's not look back, but move forward" even from our heroic president. We are willing to crucify poor old Blagojevich for using the old anglo acronym for "file under carnal knowledge" in private conversation, but we are not going to prosecute a national crime carried on in our name at Guantanamo? How did this country arrive at such collective insanity? We have become the laughing stock of the rest of the civilized world. Is this another french fry, french toast moment? Those that claim that our past behavior has been responsible for creating more terrorist than we can kill are correct.
Posted by julien38 at 01/24/2009 @ 12:23pm
To prosecute criminality, one must first stop it from continuing.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/24/2009 @ 12:54pm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17895.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/24/2009 @ 1:03pm
"How did this country arrive at such collective insanity?"
Posted by julien38 at 01/24/2009 @ 12:23pm
Just not too insane:
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 9-11, 2009. N=1,031 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"How do you think each of the following presidents will go down in history -- as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor? . . . ."
_______Outstanding__AboveAv__Av_BelowAv_Poo
George W. Bush__4_____13_____23___23____36
Richard Nixon___2_____13_____32___23____25
Jimmy Carter ___6_____20_____39___15 ____14
George Bush 41__5_____23_____ 49___10____11
Bill Clinton ____13 ____ 37 _____ 29 __ 10____10
Ronald Reagan _ 25____ 39 _____ 26___ 4 ____ 5
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 20, 2009. N=1,012 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
Based on what you have heard or read, how would you rate Barack Obama's inauguration speech? Would you rate it as excellent, good, just okay, poo...
Barack Obama__46____ 35______12 ___2 ____ 1
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/24/2009 @ 1:37pm