-
The IRS Ten: The New Keating Five
June 13, 2013 | 54 comments
-
Mark Levin: The Constitution’s Churchill
June 11, 2013 | 214 comments
-
George Clooney’s Perfect Storm
June 6, 2013 | 91 comments
-
IRS Commissioner Aided Tax Cheat Congressman
June 4, 2013 | 55 comments
-
The IRS and FBI: Breach of Faith
May 30, 2013 | 119 comments
A Further Perspective
Austin and Guantanamo: A Lesson in Responsibility
Liberalism and a pilot: Why Obama is wrong about Guantanamo.
“During the presidential campaign last year, Mr. Obama railed
against the detention complex on an American military base in
Cuba, calling it a symbol used by terrorists to recruit new
members. Within days of his inauguration, he ordered Guantánamo
closed by January.”
— New York Times,
November 18, 2009
“We are responsible for what we
are.”
— Jean Paul Sartre, 1939
So.
What are we really seeing in Austin, Texas?
The proverbial and admittedly overused but still accurate phrase: a teachable moment.
President Obama believes Guantanamo, which imprisons military combatants captured on the battlefield (also known as the world), is, as the Times faithfully reported, “a symbol used by terrorists to recruit new members.”
Yesterday, one Joseph Stack flew a plane into an office building that housed an IRS office. In a lengthy screed discovered in the aftermath, Stack blamed the IRS for his actions.
Which raised instantly the question: are President Obama and American liberals at fault for the actions of Mr. Stack?
After all, the President and his liberal allies have made it abundantly clear in the last year that they intend to plunge Americans into so much debt that there will be nothing left to do, in the view of millions of Americans, than raise taxes. Beginning with those who earn more than $250,000 a year, but not limited to that if one is familiar with all the proposed taxes out there on everything from soda (New York) to sex (Nevada — but of course.) That doesn’t even count the myriad of state and local income, property, corporation, inheritance and other taxes in a list it takes H&R Block 24 hours a day to even begin to understand. And taxes, of course, is the raison d’être for the very existence of the iconic American symbol of the tax collector — the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS.
Mr. Stack’s target.
The logic is inescapable. If Guantanamo is a symbol that so infuriates terrorists to violence and this is therefore, a justification for closing it — hey, you don’t want to encourage those terrorists, do you? —obviously an IRS that so infuriated Mr. Stack should be closed as well.
And the President who wishes to put more and more of the income of Americans in a position to be collected by the IRS — is responsible for making the IRS into that symbol.
Right?
Wrong.
The problem here, beginning at this moment with Mr. Obama but certainly not limited to him, is a refusal to acknowledge that we — that would be all of us walking the planet — need to take responsibility for what we do. Which means whether you are hunched in a cave in Afghanistan, living in the White House, having a disagreement with the IRS or are engaged in any of a limitless number of human actions anywhere in the world you, yes you, are responsible for what you do.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (141) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/19/austin-and-guantanamo-a-lesson
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Mole in Don Draper
- Of Weiner and Women
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
PCC| 2.19.10 @ 6:52AM
Dear Mr. Lord,
I'm glad you mentioned and linked to Gov. Chris Christie's recent budget speech.
Fellow AmSpec readers may enjoy this clip of the speech from YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Alan Brooks| 2.19.10 @ 5:54PM
"sex (Nevada -- but of course.)"
Libertarians-- they have no (real) responsibilities except to promote liberty; they have accepted the Christ of freedom and are above the law.
Alan Brooks| 2.19.10 @ 11:57PM
Apologia for answering myself again, but prostitution-- legal or not-- is disgusting.
Attempting to get pleasure from a whore is like trying to get happiness from porn.
Steve| 2.19.10 @ 7:38AM
Nice work, Jeffrey. However, I believe you take way too seriously what the Left says. They will literally say anything to press a political advantage, without necessarily *meaning* it.
Clinton blamed Limbaugh for OK City simply to gain a political advantage. Ditto, Obama vis-a-vis Guantanomo. Clinton knew Limbaugh was not responsible for Tim McVeigh, just as Obama knew he wasn't going to close Guantanomo.
Words have no meaning for the Left, other than as tools for deception. To take their pronouncements seriously is to fall for their racket. Still, it's fun to point out the foolishness of it all and you did a fine job of doing that.
Alan Brooks| 2.19.10 @ 7:34PM
To hell with Toddard.
The Russians were correct in torturing millions of Germans in 1945. Something was accomplished in WWII; the Germans will never dominate Europe; and we chased the Soviets out of Eastern Europe about 45 years later.
Today? let anything that needs be done be done to if not defeat than at least roll back the jidadists. And if that means a bit of waterboarding, then so be it. To hell with the jihadists, and to hell withToddard.
It is all personal Toddard; I take offense at you personally and will chip away at your ilk for the rest of my life. You will be broken Toddard, and that is not a promise or threat-- it is a guarantee.
Alan Brooks| 2.19.10 @ 11:24PM
Torture worked on a mass scale in '45, because the Germans were thus convinced:
a) they were not Ubermensch.
b) to not seek hegemony again.
And, again, we eventually pressured the Russians back into Russia.
Alan Brooks| 2.19.10 @ 11:54PM
Apologies for postscripting too much-- but my comments are shorter than Toddler's tedious comments that one can barely get through.
I will keep posting this every time Toddler mentions Gitmo:
Toddard's use of "gulag" is the biggest giveaway as to what a dissembler he is. The GULAGs in the USSR were 10,000x worse than Gitmo is today or was five years ago. Gitmo is clean, the prisoners get good food and medical care.
And he knows that.
But Toddler is too smart to be an hispanic like "Justin Raimando". So what IS the little shit's real name?
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 7:59AM
The premise upon which this entire silly argument rests is faulty. That our secret gulags and torture chambers are used as terrorist recruiting tools is, however obviously true (think of how incensed Americans would be at the idea of an American being tortured by Arabs), not *the* reason most people argue they should be closed, it is *a* reason, and a secondary one at that. There are many arguments as to why we should not allow our government to operate secret due-process-free prisons and torture chambers, and they should all be obvious to any American. They are illegal, barbaric and profoundly un-American – more appropriate to Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China or Pol Pot’s Cambodia than to a civilized Western republic.
"And the President who wishes to put more and more of the income of Americans in a position to be collected by the IRS -- is responsible for making the IRS into that symbol.
Right?"
Wrong, but not for the reasons the author argues. It is simply a fact that Obama is not "responsible for making the IRS into (the) symbol" of oppressive taxation. It has been that forever.
I suspect that had the author thought more carefully about this argument before posting the original post we would not be reading this one. I understand the argument Mr. Lord is trying to make, but the analogy is extremely clumsy and problematic. Our secret gulags and torture chambers should be closed for myriad reasons, and that they are used as a recruiting tool is only one of them, and not a primary reason. We Americans object to our government operating secret gulags and torture chambers primarily because we are Americans, and such things offend our sense of justice and our reverence for the Rule of Law, and contradict the principles upon which our nation was founded. That is one of the things that separates Americans from barbarians and banana republicans - before we allow government to put a man in a cage for life we let the accused defend himself in a free trial. Period. Frankly, it disgusts me that I even have to explain this to fellow Americans. Otherwise (if one were to argue that it is not necessary to allow persons to defend themselves from government accusations) one is advocating that Big Government should have the power to kidnap any person from anywhere on earth, doing the most mundane tasks, nowhere near any battlefield, and put him in a secret cage forever without ever giving him a chance to defend himself, or without access to legal counsel or his family. By extension one is arguing that *innocent civilians* should have no right to defend themselves against government accusations in court. Obviously that is unacceptable. We don't deny government that power because we owe the detainees anything - we do it because we are Americans, and we don't trust government with powers like that and we never have. We deny government that power because, as Americans, we refuse to allow terrorists to strip from us the principles that are the bedrock of our entire system of government.
Secret prisons, jailing without trial, torture chambers? Is it really necessary to have to argue why we do not allow these sorts of things? Why we oppose Stalinism? Good Lord (pun intended).
Copyleft| 2.19.10 @ 8:25AM
Exactly, Toddard. In his eagerness to make an analogy, Lord missed his starting premise: that Guantanamo is bad "because it promotes terrorism."
No... it's bad because that's not what America stands for. It's bad because it's illegal and un-American, and it flies in the face of every American principle. The fact that our enemies can point to it as an example of American hypocrisy is just a side effect.
Support the rule of law and the Constitution: close Guantanamo.
Tim| 2.19.10 @ 8:47AM
As far as secret gulags and toroture chambers go, Guantanamo has been singularly unsuccessful. Evry complaint by the inmates has been examined in international media; from the bare handed handling of the Koran by Infidels, to the discomfort of air conditioning to the arab sensitivity.
Some gulag.
Sir| 2.19.10 @ 8:50AM
What a couple of pansies you two are.
The "rule of law" and the Constitution apply to those whose allegiance lies with the United States of America. Period.
To extend those benefits to just anyone is to be fatally weak.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 9:16AM
"The "rule of law" and the Constitution apply to those whose allegiance lies with the United States of America. Period."
While you may wish that were true, it is not. It is simply a fact that you are wrong. The Constitution says nothing about "citizens". It states simply what the government may *not* do - i.e. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" or "abridging the freedom of speech". When it cites particular rights it does not confine them to "citizens": "No *person* shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury," "nor shall any *person* be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" etc. Obviously non-citizens are "persons". The rights that *are* reserved specifically for American citizens are defined as such in the Constitution - the right to vote, for instance. Otherwise those restrictions and rights protect any person in U.S. jurisdiction:
"The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. . . . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court."
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....;invol=356
Dagny Taggert| 2.19.10 @ 9:55AM
How about fixing what's wrong with Gitmo? If the military got their $hit together with respect to due process (i.e. trying these guys in a timley fashion--not 8 years of waiting for trial) we'd eliminate much of the criticism of the facility. Try 'em, sentance them, or send them back to their homelands.
SL, you are taking the Gitmo part of this piece and running with it.
I would take Lord's argument and a step further: the Left's infatuation with uncovering "root causes" as an explanation for people's actions. What Lord is touching on are many false "givens" perpetuated by the Left--Muslim extremists are poor and frustrated (wrong, most terrorists have middle- and upper-class backgrounds); unskilled labor trapped in a lifetime without a "living wage" (wrong, most climb a ladder of higher wages as they add productive skills); urban poor failing in schools and life because of their surroundings (wrong, single-parent-headed families are a more direct variable on those outcomes--but we can't promote a traditional family, could we?). Violent criminals as victims of their circumstances; 9-11--"we had it coming to us." Childhood obesity--it's McDonald's fault.
These are all examples of not taking responsibilities for ones' actions. And it's all closely intertwined with the ridiculous doctrine of political correctness. "Persons of size" was a term I heard used the other day. We've successfully taken the stigma out of being a fatso by making it un-p.c. to mention it.
So while I do agree with you that Gitmo has been a failure with respect to how poorly it has been run, I think Lord isn't off the mark in how the left's myth of how it's a "tool to recruit terrorists" is another in a long line of rationalizations designed for a group or an individual to evade the responsibility of their actions.
Alan Brooks| 2.19.10 @ 11:48PM
Toddard's use of "gulag" is the biggest giveaway as to what a dissembler he is. The GULAGs in the USSR were 10,000x worse than Gitmo is today or was five years ago. Gitmo is clean, the prisoners get good food and medical care.
And he knows that.
But Toddler is too smart to be an hispanic like "Justin Raimando". So what IS the little shit's real name?
John II| 2.19.10 @ 10:32AM
Your incendiary remarks are over the top and, well, irresponsible, Tod. I demand an immediate retraction--failing which, you may expect to hear from my attorney as soon as she gets out of law school.
And now back to cleaning the torture chamber in my basement to make room for my new gulag.
George S| 2.19.10 @ 10:46AM
Did you know that you can break any law or ordinance if it means preserving your life? You can kill in self defense, you can break into someone's house to prevent death from the elements, you can kill an innocent person just to grab possession of the last life preserver or parachute, and, yes, you can even torture someone to reveal the antidote to the poison he has slipped you. All perfectly legal (that is, free from prosecution).
So the 'rule of law' takes a back seat to self-preservation (because laws are meaningless absent life). To claim that we have to uphold the standard of 'rule of law' against an enemy trying to kill us falls into this category. We do not have to abide by our standards, or values or our laws if that means our death. That is why the Constitution is silent about how to handle the enemy in our care -- it leaves it to the Executive in his capacity to prosecute war.
Also remember: the Constitution did not arise out of virgin birth to lord over us. It was written by We the People. Not Saudi Arabia, not Pakistan. We, who chose to be governed and delegated power to a government to protect and defend the United States. Not the world. Citing law that gives people who bear no ill will to the United States coming under its jurisdiction is a far cry from enemy combatants or spies (check the case law on that).
But the point of the article is that people act out of their own conscience and external factors are an excuse. But long diatribes are necessary when one cannot answer the basic question: what motivated the 9/11 attacks (and other attacks prior) when Guantanamo was not a factor?
John II| 2.19.10 @ 10:56AM
Tod's a legal-eagle, George. He's not interested in the natural law that undergirds constitutional law. I doubt that he believes in it, but I'm certain he's never studied it.
When my daughter gets out of law school, I'm going to have her sue the entire legal profession for philosophical malpractice.
Now where are the keys to my basement door?
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 11:06AM
George S, your argument (such as it is) is not at all germane to this discussion. There is *no* justification for torture in US law, no matter what the circumstances are:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture"
- Convention Against Torture, signed into law by President Reagan, which per Article 6 of the Constitution is still binding law as we have elected NOT to withdraw from it.
That being said, what you are describing is a situation where a person is literally *at that moment* in defense of his life. This (obviously) does not describe a situation where a powerless detainee is being abused by his captor. In short, your argument is that because terrorism exists, our government should no longer be bound by the law. It is really too stupid to treat as though it is serious.
George S| 2.19.10 @ 12:40PM
Me being called stupid is the answer to what motivated terrorists to stage the 9/11 attacks...
The Convention Against Torture is not germane to this discussion, either. I do not for a moment believe that President Reagan would have not sanctioned 'any means necessary' to save lives of US citizens. In fact, Nancy Pelosi, when first informed in a CIA briefing, did not raise the objection (nor cite CAT) to water boarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques either. How perceptions change when the danger subsides...
But if you are suggesting that we torture not to save lives but instead do it for sadistic fun, then that's where we part company (and I will make time to sit on a jury for an interrogator who does so). Do you really believe this is what we do?
I think you do; we have "secret gulags and torture chambers" which are so secret only you have heard of them. We routinely torture and abuse hapless terrorists (also known as Naval Aviator trainees) by water boarding them. Or playing loud rock music (I'll give you that one), depriving them sleep (my infant daughter must be a Gitmo guard) or putting underwear on their heads (maybe that's what motivated Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab). If that's torture, you obviously misread the CAT treaty.
But I see that you are a conscientious objector when it comes to torture even if it involves saving American lives. While I respect that, I most certainly will not vote for you to handle our national security.
Do you or do you not believe in torture to save American lives (i.e., to have prevented 9/11) during a ticking time bomb scenario? Like you say: this (obviously) does not describe a situation where a powerless detainee is being abused by his captor.
My opinion: terrorists would respect us (read: fear) if we used harsh interrogation techniques. Because it has worked. That's why Obama is not in a hurry to close Gitmo. And why it's not an excuse to commit terrorism.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 1:24PM
“Me being called stupid is the answer to what motivated terrorists to stage the 9/11 attacks...”
I did not call you stupid. I called the argument that because terrorism exists our government should be free to break the law stupid. And it is.
“The Convention Against Torture is not germane to this discussion, either”
Of course it is – it states that "No exceptional circumstances *whatsoever*… may be invoked as a justification of torture". Sorry.
“I do not for a moment believe that President Reagan would have not sanctioned 'any means necessary' to save lives of US citizens.”
That’s nice that you believe that. I, for one, believe President Reagan (like all patriotic Americans) valued American liberty (and the laws upon which it stands) over his life, and would not have sacrificed the former to save the latter. Patrick Henry cried “Give me Liberty or give me Death,” after all, not “Give Me Safety, Daddy State, and you can have my Liberty as payment!”
“In fact, Nancy Pelosi, when first informed in a CIA briefing, did not raise the objection (nor cite CAT) to water boarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques either. How perceptions change when the danger subsides...”
Nancy Pelosi is an opportunistic, soulless gargoyle with no love of the Constitution. We needed no more proof of that, but thank you for providing it anyway.
“But if you are suggesting that we torture not to save lives but instead do it for sadistic fun, then that's where we part company (and I will make time to sit on a jury for an interrogator who does so). Do you really believe this is what we do?”
No. Nor did I suggest that.
“Do you or do you not believe in torture to save American lives (i.e., to have prevented 9/11) during a ticking time bomb scenario? Like you say: this (obviously) does not describe a situation where a powerless detainee is being abused by his captor.”
Correct – that captor is not in danger, ergo the “break any law to save your life” rule (that you made up) does not apply. And I believe, as did Reagan, that "no exceptional circumstances *whatsoever* may be invoked as a (legal) justification of torture". Which is to say it should always be illegal, under all circumstances. And I think it doesn’t need saying that we should not construct our legal system based on extremely unlikely fantasy scenarios.
I will play with a fantasy scenario for a moment, though: say an American’s daughter is kidnapped and buried alive. That American now has the kidnapper captive. The daughter will die without a confession as to her whereabouts. Obviously, we do not change our laws to legalize torture on the infinitesimal chance that this made-for-film scenario will some day happen. But what should the American do? What are his obligations? He has an obligation to his family, of course – to his daughter. He also has an obligation to obey the democratically enacted laws of his republic. A good American who chooses to extract that information through torture should then stand trail in a court of law like a man, and defend his actions, and accept any punishment that court hands down.
“My opinion: terrorists would respect us (read: fear) if we used harsh interrogation techniques. Because it has worked.”
Then you should propose a Constitutional Amendment, and propose that we withdraw from the UN, Geneva and the Convention Against Torture. Until then, it is illegal *in every circumstance*.
albert constantine, jr| 2.22.10 @ 6:20PM
Actually, I believe the law recognizes a necessity defense, though there is an element that requires a defendant to show that there was no available alternative to the action that was otherwise prohibited. While I would never wish to identify myself as someone who has studied law, this would suggest that the post by George S had merit.
Jeffrey Lord| 2.19.10 @ 10:36AM
S.L....
So FDR was a war criminal for stashing all those captured Nazis picked up on the battlefield by the tens of thousands (in America alone there were almost a half million, I believe) and around the world and not giving them lawyers? Interesting.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 10:54AM
"On the battlefield"? No.
Stuart Koehl| 2.19.10 @ 11:13AM
So, was FDR a war criminal for trying the Nazi saboteurs captured on Long Island by a military tribunal and summarily executing them?
Were our commanders in Europe war criminals for summarily trying German troops captured in American uniforms (as well as German civilians caught bearing arms of any sort) and executing them by firing squad?
Just curious as to where you see the boundaries drawn.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 11:19AM
That's nice that you're curious, Mr. Koehl. Debate, though, is a two-way street, and you have more than once demonstrated that you are not up to it. If you are, I am still waiting for your responses to these:
What's your source for that casualty total ("The maximum Palestinian death toll in Gaza was on the order of 300") Mr. Koehl? And is that estimate widely accepted?
Could you cite me which international laws America is violating by possessing "Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California", and any organs of international law which have found America’s possession of these territories illegal? If not, to what "right" are you referring when you speak of "rightful owners"?
Are you unaware that the EU, myriad UN organs, UN security council resolutions etc and the International Court of Justice contend that the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law? If you *are* aware – if you know that the consensus of the international community is that these settlements are illegal – then why pretend to be baffled as to how anyone else could agree?
And please cite where I concur with the Palestinian position that “all Jewish land in Palestine” is “stolen”, or retract.
JimE| 2.21.10 @ 6:45PM
Toddard, shove the EU and UN up your anus. UN and human rights, what a buffoon you are.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 2.19.10 @ 11:59AM
Stuart: Only 6 of the 8 (2 teams of 4) who landed in Long Island were executed in 1942, the other two, Dasch and Burger were deported back to Germany, after five years and eight months in prison (for helping capture the other 6).
But that was FDR, and whatever he did, was good, and whatever Bush did, was bad!! So it's military tribunals and execution for FDR, constitutional rights and trials for all, for Bush. Makes sense?
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 12:05PM
On the contrary, FDR was even worse than Bush in my opinion.
John II| 2.19.10 @ 1:58PM
Well . . . well . . . in MY opinion . . . oh, skip it.
I can't even remember what my opinion was, I'm so upset. My torture chamber is just a mess, and I don't know how I'm going to make enough room for my new gulag, especially with the rather complicated plans to describe it as an IRS auditing office.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 2:11PM
I hear you. Once you get so far down the list that you're deciding between FDR and Bush, what's the point of deciding who did the most damage? At that point - as the great scholar Thomas Fleming remarked regarding "conservative" talk radio hosts - "there is no “better,” only different stinks of excrement."
Andy_Krow| 2.19.10 @ 11:26AM
"On the battlefield"? No.
So, Oh Enlightened One...?
Where was the Looney-Tune Nigerian, Fruit-Of-The-Loom's "battlefield"?
Where he got on the plane? Over Detroit?
Curious...
Andy
Stuart Koehl| 2.19.10 @ 2:49PM
Therein you have the matter in a nutshell: Where is the battlefield, when the enemy considers American citizens and American assets everwhere to be legitimate targets? Who is a combatant, when the enemy does not belong to any recognized national army, wears no distinguishing insignia, has no visible chain of command, does not carry weapons openly?
The answers are quite simple: the battlefield is everywhere the enemy is encountered; an enemy combatant is anyone caught in arms against the United States or aiding and abetting the cause of the enemy either materially or psychologically.
Insofar as, under international law, those who deliberately target civilians, do not wear uniforms or distinguishing markings on their clothing, do not carry arms openly, and do not have a visible chain of command are considered to be "unlawful combatants", under international law such persons can be apprehended and held indefinitely, and moreover are not entitled to any of the privileges and protections extended by the Geneva Convention (one purpose of which is specifically to limit warfare to "regular" combatants in order to mitigate the chaos of war and violence against civilians). Taking the laws of war at face value, we don't have to take these people prisoner at all--we can legitimately shoot them upon aprehension, or, if we want to be fastidious, collect three officers, conduct a summary court martial, and then summon a firing squad.
Extending legal protection to terrorists does nothing except legitimize terrorists by bringing them inside the system, a system that emphatically was not intended for their like.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 3:10PM
"unlawful combatants"... are not entitled to any of the privileges and protections extended by the Geneva Convention"
False. The Supreme Court, in Hamdan, concluded that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (which requires humane treatment of detainees and bars torture and degrading treatment) applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda:
http://gulcfac.typepad.com/geo....._the_.html
Stuart Koehl| 2.19.10 @ 4:05PM
It is widely believed that in Hamdan, the Court exceeded its authority in a manner not seen since Roe v. Wade. Not only is it an infringement on the separation of powers, but it also overturns four centuries of settled international law.
It was also a prudential error on a massive scale, because extending Geneva rights to unlawful combatants erases the line between soldiers and terrorists, creating a moral and legal equivalency (which, I suppose, you would think is a Good Thing). Inevitably, this will lead to an erosion of the distinction between civilians and combatants generally, and exacerbate the trend identified by Martin van Creveld in "The Culture of War", in which we regress to the period before the Treaty of Westphalia. You should read about how war was waged back in those good old days.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 3:23PM
And, again, one must be careful to distinguish between "terrorists" and "accused terrorists". One may make the claim that "terrorists have no rights" (or whatever), but innocent persons *accused* of terrorism, obviously, have the same rights anyone else does under U.S. law.
Stuart Koehl| 2.19.10 @ 4:07PM
And, oh, while I am at it, had I been George W. Bush, my response to Hamdan would have paraphrased that of Andrew Jackson in a similar situation:
"The Court has made its decision. Now let it enforce it".
Stuart Koehl| 2.19.10 @ 4:07PM
Who are these "accused terrorists" of which you speak?
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 7:15PM
What's your source for that casualty total ("The maximum Palestinian death toll in Gaza was on the order of 300") Mr. Koehl? And is that estimate widely accepted?
Alan Brooks| 2.19.10 @ 5:28PM
Torture isn't always wrong, Toddaddled. We (not just the Russians) tortured a few Germans to gain intelligence, thus shortening the war for civilians-- whose safety comes first.
Alan Brooks| 2.19.10 @ 5:31PM
... or at least the torture of Germans to gain intelligence MIGHT have shortened the war.
Toddaddled, we do need chumps like you who care about the rights of combatants, takes all kinds whether in war or peace...
Just as long as it is you who are the chump.
Alan Brooks| 2.19.10 @ 5:41PM
oops, sorry to PS again, but the above ought to have been written:
"Toddaddled, we do need chumps like you who care about the rights of ACCUSED combatants."
Whew that was a close one, you can't be too careful these days. We wouldn't want to hurt Toddaddled's sensibilities. We have to spend govt. funds to defend ACCUSED enemy combatants in case one or more of them might be innocent. We need to give the ACCUSED enemy combatants the best attorneys taxpayers' money (please send the bill to Uncle Sam's office) can buy to possibly get them freed on technicalities-- be they guilty or perhaps even innocent (!)
I mean, you never know, do you.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 7:33PM
Oh brother. Are we back to this now?
martin j smith| 2.19.10 @ 8:02AM
I agree it is the responsibility issue and is it not time for more agressive talk of Obama's responsibility for our economy and the the politicaal climate we find ourselves. There are not one but arenas of opportunity: One is the so called health care summit. and, the other the so called so called bi-partisan commission on the deficit. Both of these should be used as forums to let Obama know one thing: Its you babe. and your allies alone.
Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 10:00AM
Austin and Guantanamo: A Lesson in Responsibility « My Thomson Gitmo links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bohred| 2.19.10 @ 10:41AM
It is immaterial how Gitmo is run. It doesn't matter how we treat the these foreign Jihadists. They will hate and fear us no matter what we do. If we hung them publicly and buried them in pig carcasses or released them with a first class ticket home they would still use our existence to define their hatred.
Don't worry what they think, worry what you do. Gitmo should stay, the terrorists should be treated with Military Justice as they are at war with us. If they are American citizens they should be tried as traitors. Their records public, their histories known, our actions done in the rule of law. This has been going on for over a thousand years.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 11:10AM
What sort of justice should innocent persons accused of terrorism receive?
Stuart Koehl| 2.19.10 @ 11:13AM
Name three.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 11:27AM
I most certainly will do that. First, though: What sort of justice should innocent persons accused of terrorism receive?
Bohred| 2.19.10 @ 11:56AM
Why do you think they are innocent? Do you think you are omniscient?
Why do you keep insisting that we Americans are unfair and biased against accused terrorists?
If the soldiers at the front don't kill out of hand, and the accused ends up in our justice system, why is that always bad to you?
Every single person here wants the innocent released and the guilty to pay.
To answer your question:
They should receive the best Justice on the Planet, American justice as per the Constitution.
Then we will decide if they are innocent.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 12:06PM
"They should receive the best Justice on the Planet, American justice as per the Constitution."
Then we are agreed.
Bohred| 2.19.10 @ 12:55PM
Oh no son, you don't get away so easily.
You asked:
"What sort of justice should innocent persons accused of terrorism receive? "
As if we Americans somehow violated the rights of men by prosecuting these Jihadists.
And I want to know why you think this way.
They want to kill us to justify their god. Why must we treat them as Americans?
Please tell me.
GW| 2.19.10 @ 1:13PM
He can't. He believes international law is above our constitution and terrorists should have as many rights as citizens. He's a lunatic. If everyone thought like him we wouldn't have a United States.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 1:37PM
"He believes international law is above our constitution"
How surreal. You are the one who believes we should ignore the Constitution - specifically Article 6, which mandates that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby".
Or are you one of these leftists who pick and choose which portions of the Constitution to pretend to revere?
GW| 2.19.10 @ 1:57PM
And you're the one who thinks there are "secret gulags" run by our military for the sole purpose of torturing *innocent* people our government calls terrorists for their sick, sadistic pleasure. When reality calls, please answer.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 2:07PM
"And you're the one who thinks there are "secret gulags" run by our military for the sole purpose of torturing *innocent* people our government calls terrorists for their sick, sadistic pleasure."
Notice that you didn't refute my accusation - because you can't, because you literally ARE "one of these leftists who pick and choose which portions of the Constitution to pretend to revere", and you know it.
Whereas I do *not* think we maintain secret prisons for "the sole purpose of torturing *innocent* people our government calls terrorists for their sick, sadistic pleasure." I think that because our secret prisons exist outside the bounds of the law, innocents are invariably abused.
GW| 2.19.10 @ 3:43PM
So have you been tortured or do you know anyone who has been tortured in the "secret gulags?" As a leftist and a Republican (as you've called me), I am willing to listen to your weakass interpretation of the constitution if you can provide examples of these gulags. But I'm sure you think bush was behind 9/11 and the jews are running the world.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 1:32PM
"As if we Americans somehow violated the rights of men by prosecuting these Jihadists."
What Jihadis? Or do you mean those our government has *accused* of being jihadis, including the innocents? You have already stated that innocent suspects should "receive... American justice as per the Constitution." I agree. And how do we determine guilt or innocence here in America, in our American system of justice? With a fair trial. Actual (as opposed to *accused*) terrorists, whose guilt has been proven in a trial, can receive the death penalty for all I care.
Anyway, I don't understand the question. Are you asking me why I think people our government accuses of being terrorists should have a fair, open trial?
Bohred| 2.19.10 @ 2:12PM
You sir, are an ass.
Answer the first question:
Name three.
Answer the second:
Why do you think they are innocent?
You brought it up. You started it.
You said:
What sort of justice should innocent persons accused of terrorism receive?
Which is a false argument. We all agree the innocent should go free. No one here thinks the innocent should suffer, unlike the Jihadists who kill our innocents.
You sir, are an ass.
Name three.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 2:32PM
"Answer the first question:
Name three."
I'm not answering that question until Mr. Koehl answers my questions (as I answered all of his previously).
"Answer the second:
Why do you think they are innocent?"
Do you believe that we have never detained an innocent person? Our government does not even pretend that is the case. We have released people we discovered were not actually terrorists - many of them.
"What sort of justice should innocent persons accused of terrorism receive?
Which is a false argument. We all agree the innocent should go free."
Innocents *have* gone free. That is the problem - we have detained and abused innocent men, and let them go years later. You do not know this?
Serious question: do you believe that we have never detained an innocent person? If I prove to you that we have, will you agree that the system we have is unacceptable, or will your argument morph to something else?
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 2:38PM
Another question: if the government is always right when it accuses people of being terrorists, if they are an infallible judge of guilt, then why have trials for anything at all? Why not just have the CIA declare whether Americans accused of crimes are innocent or guilty?
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 2:42PM
Also, there is no cause to be un-civil, or for childish name-calling. Let's try to act like adults, eh?
Thank you.
Bohred| 2.19.10 @ 3:15PM
You sir, are an ass.
Answer the question as you said you would:
Name three.
Stop shifting, stop dodging; name three.
You said you would, now do it.
I know the US's history. I know wrong has been done in the name of right. Everyone here wants to do the right thing. Now it is your turn.
Name three.
You sir, are an ass.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 3:25PM
You are a stinky poo-poo face, with a big hairy butt.
Your turn!
Bohred| 2.19.10 @ 5:08PM
Name three!
come on little leftist, name three. you said you would, now do it. Name three!!!
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 6:51PM
"come on little leftist, name three. you said you would, now do it"
Nope. I said I would "do it" (respond to Stuart Koehl's question) once he'd responded to my previous queries. I will of course be happy to resume our debate once you've ceased your little tantrum and resumed acting like an adult.
I am waiting.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 7:08PM
"come on little leftist, name three. you said you would, now do it"
Nope. I said I would "do it" (respond to Stuart Koehl's question) once he'd responded to my previous queries. I will of course be happy to resume our debate once you've ceased your little tantrum and resumed acting like an adult.
I am waiting.
John II| 2.19.10 @ 5:17PM
Au contraire, there is quite a bit of cause to be uncivil toward those who misuse terms like "torture chamber" and "gulag" with reference to Americano accommodations for jihadists, and, especially, "great scholar" with reference to a writer who is no more than an interesting crank.
Such misuse of the language bespeaks a colossal incivility which I herewith denounce as execrable and weird.
And yet . . . I do not respond in kind with incivility, but rather with cheerful mockery.
In this context, it may perhaps be appropriate to announce that I have devised a new torture for the jihadist miscreants. No more blaring rock music. I propose that, henceforth, the torture should be 24 hours per day of Obama speeches interspersed with Toddard disquisitions on Constitutionalism.
My God, it IS gruesome, I admit, but extreme measures are called for--and we'll have those bastards singing like canaries in no time at all.
RAMIII| 2.19.10 @ 6:03PM
Hear! Hear! Well said.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 2.19.10 @ 7:01PM
John: I love your line about "cheerful mockery", it describes you to a Tee (analytically scoffing).
Yesterday on the news, they were referring to the terrorist down in Austin, and about his massive manifesto (all 3,200 words), but I was thinking to myself, a 3,200 word manifesto is massive? I don't think so!! We've got a least one person here (at TAS), who shall remain nameless, who writes 3,200 words, before 0630 in the morning, and finishing his first cup of coffee.
3,200 word manifesto my ass!! That's just a warm up (stretching) for some people.
Alan Brooks| 2.19.10 @ 6:53PM
"S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 12:06PM
"They should receive the best Justice on the Planet, American justice as per the Constitution."
Then we are agreed. "
As long as Toddaddled pays for it. A special SL Toddard (or is it Justin Raimando?) tax is in order.
Appleby| 2.19.10 @ 11:00AM
Oh, darn. Another shriek about Jihadists and Gitmo. And here I was hoping for something trenchant about the IRS!
The American Way in days of Yore was to not only take personal responsibility for what one did but to take personal action against them what done it.
The IRS is the most powerful organization in the world. From it there is no appeal. They can swoop in and seize everything you have and toss you and your family and pets into the street because somebody said they though you MIGHT be guilty -- and it's up to you to prove you are not, using whatever resources you have left after they have stripped you bare. They can keep you at bay for as long as they like, and use all the resources of the Government to fight you, and if you get five cents together to fight back they can seize that too.
And you can't do anything about it...except fly your airplane into their building or drive your truck bomb into their front lobby and pop the cap on it and blow them all to Kingdom Come (or wherever IRS Agents end up when the bomb goes off.
Obama and his thugocrats are clearly past the time when they need to consider what happens when the country is under the rule of the IRS -- and what the only tools the IRS leaves you to fight back with are engaged.
Yes, we are responsible for what we do. This is the time to think about what we will do.
But remember this: THE IRS IS RESPONSIBLE TO NOBODY, AND YOU CANNOT WIN AGAINST THEM. And Obama is their acolyte, because his entire teetering house of cards depends on the illusion that the IRS is his friend.
Ask Saruman how that worked out for him.
chuck| 2.19.10 @ 11:36AM
I have to agree, the IRS s responsible to noone. Our elected officials made it this way, and keep it that way in order to use terror to force compliance. A fair comparison was the Gestapo, who kept German citizens in line by fear, torture(real tortue, not this Gitmo stuff), and murder. At some point, out of control IRS agents have to accept their personal responsibility when they abuse their power and ruin people's lives. I'm only surprised that this doesn't happen more often.
Bohred| 2.19.10 @ 12:05PM
27 years ago the SF Office of the IRS stole $2,500 from me. They refused to recognize my authorized refund from 1982 applied to 1983. My accountant told me I was nuts to let them keep my money for a year, and it would cost at least $5,000 to get that refund back. I let it go. Since then I have taken every deduction I possibly can, with professional help (CYA), to give them as little blood as possible.
Tax people in the bay area in the early 80's know what I am talking about, I was one of the victims.
If there was a vote to disassemble the IRS, no matter what it did to this country, I would vote yes.
chuck| 2.19.10 @ 1:14PM
I feel your pain,bohred. I was listening to Mark Steyn the other day, and something he said really stuck me. "Free- born men should not be treated this way." He was talking about burdensome regulations at the time. A couple of days later, while cleaning out the attic, getting ready to move, I came across garbage bags full of tax receipts from my business, crap I'm forced to keep by the government, when it stuck me,"free-born men should not be treated this way"
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 2:44PM
"I feel your pain,bohred. I was listening to Mark Steyn the other day"
My. That *does* sound painful.
chuck| 2.19.10 @ 3:15PM
toddard, you're such an ass..........didn't you use to dave matthews????
Bohred| 2.19.10 @ 3:18PM
Thanks chuck.
S.L.-
Name three.
You sir, are an ass.
RAMIII| 2.19.10 @ 6:07PM
Remember ladies and gentlemen: What is it that proceeds out of an ass?
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 7:21PM
Doody! Yaaaay!
RaMIII| 2.20.10 @ 4:19AM
S.L. is a fag...go suck a big dick faggot
Jim Wilson | 2.19.10 @ 12:08PM
The attempt to escape responsibility is nothing new, and certainly isn't a liberal phenomenon; it's been around since the beginning and is arguably one of the commonest pastimes human beings engage in. Almost all religions, cults, political movements, philosophies...almost all belief systems of every kind...try to diminish free will by attacking responsibility. Whether they call it the Fates, the Norns, society, predestination or 'daddy didn't pat me on the head often enough,' it's evident everywhere in human life.
America is one of very few nations founded on the opposite side of the argument. Free people means people responsible for themselves. Each person makes decisions, and is thus responsible.
For all the talk about the whole world yearning to be free, and for Pres. Bush's opinion that all peoples want freedom, I can't buy into that argument. People want to do whatever they like, yes. But they don't naturally want to be responsible for what they do, that has to be taught. Even so, all of us know in our hearts that we really are responsible for our own actions--otherwise why bother coming up with a bazillion different ways to explain why we're really not?
Appleby| 2.19.10 @ 12:17PM
Most people do not differentiate between the concept of Liberty and that of License. What people generally want when they ask for freedom is License -- or what P.J. O'Rourke calls Toddler Liberation: the foreedom to pull off their pants in public, stick everything they touch in their mouths, and yell Poo Poo Head in church.
Franklin| 2.19.10 @ 12:49PM
The point of this article is that we cannot pass on to another the responsibility of what we have done.
If you hit yourself in the head with a hammer, it was your hand that grasped the hammer and your arm that guided that hammer to connect with your head. You may have been so mad at someone or something and used that anger as a reason you did what you did, but it still was you.
The IRS thing – who hasn’t been mad at the IRS? YOU get in a plane, YOU fly it into a building – who is responsible? YOU.
As with Gitmo, it exists BECAUSE of 9-11. It is not the reason the Islamic Jihadist hates us or why they rammed planes into the twin towers, the Pentagon, and the countryside in PA.
The jihadists hatred of the USA is NOT because of anything we did, are doing or will do. They have been at war with others since 600AD.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 2:12PM
Why do jihadists attack the United States over neutral Switzerland?
Stuart Koehl| 2.19.10 @ 4:15PM
Because nobody gives a rat's ass about Switzerland. There is also the real problem that Switzerland is not a soft target. Ever adult Swiss male belongs to the militia. Every Swiss bed has an assault rifle, with ammunition, underneath it. The last time someone tried a large-scale act of violence in Switzerland (it was a bank robbery) it ended pretty much like the Great Northfield Minnesota Raid. Ask those proto-terrorist, the James and Younger boys, how well that turned out.
As to why the United States figures prominently in al Qaeda rhetoric, the answer is simple: terrorism is mainly about theater. "Underdog Bites Pit Bull" is good theater. "Pit Bull kills Chihuahua" is not.
You might also note that there have been far more Islamic terrorist attacks in places like Spain, Italy and the UK than in the United States.
Undoubtedly that is caused by resentment about their comrades soaking up the Carribean sun and receiving first rate meals and health care at Club Gitmo.
You'll be the first one bitching and moaning when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his buddies are locked up in some Federal supermax prison on the mainland. No, I take that back. THEY will be the first ones bitching and moaning, because 23-hour lockdown in an 8x10 cell with no amenities is a big step down from Gitmo.
Bohred| 2.19.10 @ 5:14PM
Actually, I am closely related to Emmit Dalton. And I am Danish/Swiss. We don't put up with much. As a civilized society we understand what we must protect. If I knew SL personally, I would protect him and his big mouth. As a Viking child, I really want to punch his lights out. I am trying to grow up.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 7:23PM
Oh my word. An internet tough-guy.
Oof.
Bohred| 2.19.10 @ 9:34PM
Sir you are an ass.
Name three.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 1:55PM
Why do jihadists attack the United States over neutral Switzerland?
John II| 2.19.10 @ 2:11PM
Er . . . I give up. Why? In fact, how could anyone possibly attack the United States while flying over neutral Switzerland?
Or do you mean "over the issue of a neutral Switzerland"? Is there some conspiracy theory I'm not aware of--I mean, a notion that the United States is to blame for Swiss neutrality?
You must place your modifiers more discretely, Tod. And now back to my little pretties in my torture chamber.
Oldefarte| 2.19.10 @ 2:30PM
Jeffrey, in the vein of your correct correlation, WE are all responsible for the current economic/financial/political mess that now faces this country; since we all were [directly or indirectly] repsonsible for the election of Obama. We all must now take repsonsibility and correct our mistake starting in November of 2010. It's just a shame that LAWYERS do not follow the truisms of your article by seeking restitution from the guilty party[s] that actually cause legal wrongs; and instead file lawsuits against insurance companies [and other deep pocketed concerns who will pay their fees/awards]. It's always THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS of deflect attention away from one's self by pointing fingers as others!!!!
Al Adab| 2.19.10 @ 2:59PM
In re the above "conversation": "Don't waste time bandying words with Phillistines and crackpots". M. Aurelius
Stuart Koehl| 2.19.10 @ 4:16PM
Not fair to the Phillistines, who were culturally quite advanced in comparison with their Hebrew Hillbilly neighbors.
ds80| 2.19.10 @ 5:19PM
S.L.Toddard - you sure do waste a lot of time and energy in being wrong.
WAKE UP| 2.19.10 @ 5:52PM
Every last comment on this thread will be made immediately academic when it all hits the fan again - which it will, thanks to this vacillating, conciliatory, weak, enemy-encouraging President. Guantanamo, subject of so much preoccupation, won't even be a sideshow as even S L Toddard runs for cover - and while you're running, SLT, think on this: (1) Guantanamo didn't exist before 9/11 - the idiot, obssesed terrorists didn't need it as "incentive" then, and still don't. (2) whatever we may do wrong under our Constitution, it's OUR constitution and our responsibility to sort out our way - it's called democracy. Not only is it nobody else's business, the ENEMY in particular do not have any right of access to it. What they get, instead, is 72 virgins. Tough call.
WAKE UP| 2.19.10 @ 5:52PM
Every last comment on this thread will be made immediately academic when it all hits the fan again - which it will, thanks to this vacillating, conciliatory, weak, enemy-encouraging President. Guantanamo, subject of so much preoccupation, won't even be a sideshow as even S L Toddard runs for cover - and while you're running, SLT, think on this: (1) Guantanamo didn't exist before 9/11 - the idiot, obssesed terrorists didn't need it as "incentive" then, and still don't. (2) whatever we may do wrong under our Constitution, it's OUR constitution and our responsibility to sort out our way - it's called democracy. Not only is it nobody else's business, the ENEMY in particular do not have any right of access to it. What they get, instead, is 72 virgins. Tough call.
WAKE UP| 2.19.10 @ 5:54PM
( Sorry, folks, don't know how that posted twice. Unintentional. )
Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 7:38PM
Did You Inherit Your Religion? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 10:06PM
Who Really Chooses What You Believe...You or Them? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.20.10 @ 4:07AM
Life After Death - Is It Really Necessary That We Prove It? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.20.10 @ 6:18AM
Life After Death - We All Want to Know links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
kevin Ryan| 2.20.10 @ 7:47AM
POTUS "B.O." and the left woke up a monster. If they keep it up, we're going to have a civil war. There is no "higher ground" in America, only victory or loss at this point.
Pingback| 2.20.10 @ 8:38AM
Must Know Headlines 2.20.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
SPO| 2.20.10 @ 9:17AM
Ohhh, the poor anti-tax fanatic (who owned his OWN PLANE) struck out against the U.S. Government. There’s NO WAY to convince me this Joe Stack III guy wasn’t incited to violence by the Right-Wing Spin Machine. (AM Radio Free Conservative and FOX News) I’m sure the Saudi Royals, who are now majority owners of News Corp/FOX News, were overjoyed…
Joseph Stack III was a homegrown TERRORIST and the Conservative news media was like a Osama bin Lunatic video to him. This maniac used what's become the universal sign of terrorism since 9/11... A PLANE CRASH INTO A BUILDING...
IT’S TIME TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST THESE CONSERVATIVE INSURGENTS!
NOTE: (I can’t believe the hypocrisy of the Conservative reactionaries, some actually DEFENDING this nutcase Joe "the engineer" Stack... (Scott Brown) If this guy was of Middle-Eastern decent the right-wing would have raised such a stink, pointing fingers at Obama/Biden, Democrats, Liberals for being SOFT ON TERROR!)
The thing that gets me is how these Tea Party cult members are all well-off enough to STILL be in the upper or middle class but they act like they’re being targeted and will LOSE everything to the government. I got NEWS for you retards, this kind of thing has been going on for a few decades now… ONLY THE GOVERNMENT HAS TARGETED the 40+ MILLION Americans struggling BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL.
So QUIT being a bunch of shameless, irresponsible Conservative wacko crybabies and read about your FELLOW AMERICANS who have a REAL REASON to be angry at the government BUT REFUSE TO RESORT TO VIOLENCE and work within the system for CHANGE! That’s what GREAT AMERICANS DO… (ya spoiled, pathetic CPAC @$$holes)
YEA! Ignore me NOW, m'#*~/ers... ONCE AGAIN so it sinks in
The U.S. government WON’T TAX the RICH but it will SEIZE from the POOR
I’m glad SOMEONE in the News media FINALLY did a story touching on this disturbing law enforcement policy in California (spreading to the rest of America). It appeared on News Hour on PBS (2-15-10), segment by Judy Woodruff…
Transcript:
State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-CA)
“Impounding vehicles of unlicensed motorists in CA is illegal and unconstitutional… meant to raise revenue for cash-strapped cities”
Martin Mayer (attorney - California’s Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Associations)
“…pointed out by the Ninth Circuit was that in the U.S. you have to have a warrant to seize any personal property, with VERY FEW exceptions”
NOTE: (Ohhh yeeeaaa, I guess THIS expose IS one of those exceptions)
for the REST of the story goto:
jinnbad.blogspot.com
chuck| 2.20.10 @ 10:31AM
Think about it SPO, I know thats difficult for you. The people paying the taxes, REALLY PAYING THE TAXES, are the wealthy, those that have gotten an education, started businesses, worked their asses off, not just 40 hours, but 60-80 hours a week, trying to build something, just to see government at all levels STEAL 50% of your hard work to buy votes with. We don't mind paying taxes for national defense, law enforcement, roads, and other necessary public works, but the blatant transfer of wealth from producers to moochers is IMMORAL. Damn right we're pissed. You would be too, if you got your lazy ass up and worked it off to make something.
And toddard is still an ass.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 2.20.10 @ 11:11AM
SPO: Just say NO to drugs!! This guy down in Texas is a terrorist (anybody who tries to kill 200 Americans is), but as time goes by I'm sure, he'll be exposed for being from the Left, not the Right. Read his manifesto again (if you can), and point out one thing, that proves that he's part of the Tea Party Movement. You won't be able to, but I'm sure you'll try like hell. And about the Tea Party Movement's ranks being filled by rich people, well you're off on that one too, it's filled by regular hard working Americans, not by millionaires. But don't worry about them anyway, they're no big deal, and there's certainly not enough of them, to vote every Democratic/Progressive/Liberal out of office come November, they're just a fringe group my friend (nothing to see here). But seriously SPO, stay off the drugs, it's starting to effect your thinking.
Yosemeti Sam| 2.20.10 @ 12:06PM
See what happens when terrorists are captured?
The sophistic hand-wringing encouraged by
the viral reach of the LBSM PEN1.
They - the lefties in all their ideological
vainglory - can countenance the tortured
deaths of 50 odd million HUMAN beings; yet
shudder at a terrorist being punched,
scratched, poured water upon or otherwise
fondled for actionable military intelligence.
The loathsome wail of empathy for those poor poor Club Gitmo 'tortured' captured misguided bumpkins who were merely caught shooting spitballs at Americas' finest.
TAKE NO PRISONERS!
Saves a river of words in their otherwise pathetic defense.
Chairman Mao| 2.21.10 @ 8:13AM
You bad people need to leave S L Toddard alone. After the conquest of the US is final, he will be one of the first to disappear/be reeducated and as such needs to be allowed to spout his brain dead slogans for all to hear.
WAKE UP| 2.21.10 @ 4:06PM
SPO - and all of you: Joe Stack's thing was PERSONAL, neither Left, nor Right, nor Terrorist, and he's not the first person to be driven to despair by the IRD (it has happened here in New Zealand too). What he shouldn't have done was take innocent people with him, (though one understands his wish to make a larger "statement") . You do yourselves, and Joe, his victims, and your own causes, no favour by trying to opt him in/out of your own causes. He had his own cause. It's all very sad.
JimE| 2.21.10 @ 5:32PM
SPO and Toddard, get help with your jenkem addiction.
Pingback| 2.22.10 @ 4:42AM
Taking Responsibility links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Puma x Alexander McQueen | 8.12.11 @ 11:38PM
is good