Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, I would also point out that half of Washington has known Valerie Plame was a CIA agent for years, ... This may be true, although I have heard specific rebuttals to this claim. I hope you are wrong, because if it is true, then the US is in worse shape than previously thought. The punishment for whomever made the most recent disclosure will have to be tougher, in order to discourage `ordinary' traitors. Suppose that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent gathering information about Pakistani nuclear weapons development in the late 1980s. (We know she was spying on countries involved with weapons of mass destruction; I do not know which countries.) When Valerie Plame's identity as an undercover agent became known, pro-Talaban members of the Pakistani counter-intelligence agency will have tracked all the people with whom she had contact. If some of them were suspected of having provided her with information, then the agency is likely to have tried to turn them. One technique is to torture a child to death as a warning and inducement. Even if the agent does not care about his child, he is likely to fear his own torture. And even if an agent is not working with Valerie Plame, he must consider that if he works with any other US spy, that spy's identity may be revealed and he discovered. (Or she discovered.) If Valerie Plame's identity was disclosed a long time ago, then US spying has been weakened for longer. Clearly, no one in the US wants to be a target of a radiological, nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. People who disclose the identity of undercover US spies are dangerous. As former US President George H. W. Bush said, such people are the most insidious of traitors. If you are right, and traitors betrayed the US a long time ago, then a powerful way to stop future betrayals is to send a high ranking administration official to prison for a long time -- the point being that influence and position are no help. The laws will be enforced. Novak claims he was told Valerie Plame's identity by an `administration official'. (He may even have said a `senior administration official'; I cannot remember for sure.) Perhaps Novak is lying. I do not know. In any event, the first step is for the Administration to conduct a vigorous and well publicized search for traitors, starting at the top. Only if you are wrong could some claim that a quiet investigation is warranted; and I do not think so. Not in war. Valerie Plame was trying to guard you and John (as people living in prime target areas) and other Americans, and people outside the US. No one she or someone like her might recruit should ever fear that he or she, or his or her family, might suffer because of a failure of tradecraft on the American side. No one should be discouraged from helping save lives. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: christian dreams of murder...
Dan wrote: It wouldn't have had the same cadence. I'd be more than willing to agree that Jefferson would not be too disturbed by people who just accept his principals as self evident Truths without worrying about how they came to be. But, your argument reduces them from Truth to social norms. That he would have trouble with. From Jefferson's argument in favor of the disestablishment of religion, to be found in his Notes on Virginia, (pp. 234-237,) The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: christian dreams of murder...
I think you need Israeli right-wing POV here ... Ritu wrote I'd say Israel's current army chief of staff and four ex-security chiefs would know more about the situation there. And Moshe Ya'alon and four of Israel's ex-security chiefs think that their policy is counter-productive and intensifying the cycle of hatred and destruction, breeding militancy instead of preventing it. They are also worried about the effect the policy has had on Israel's polity and economy. The right way to judge such thing is by results. King Hussein got them. President Asad got them. Our policy *is* counter-productive, but for the wrong reason. Zahal should have bombed Jenin instead of sending foot soldiers in. Sheich Yasin should have gotten bigger bomb. Gautam Mukunda wrote: They have a better record than India, though, and a threat comparable to or worse than ours. Ritu I don't quite understand what you refer to here. What does Israel have a better record in? Human rights? Establishing peace? Neutralizing the threat? Preventing further attacks? India? All of the above. About child's life vs torture of terrorist. There one piece of information missing - our country's size. It's never a child - if it is not your child, it's your relative's, or friend's, or neighbor's, or somebody with whom you were in the same class in school/college, in same unit in Army in same guided tour. It's possible, that you don't know the victim of terrorist attack, but possibility that you don't know somebody who knows him/her is very low. When intended victim of terrorist attack has a face SHRUG. Russian proverb says: Your own shirt is closest to your body Iraq and Afghanistan. SIGH Israeli experience in Lebanon shows that rice turns into bullets pretty fast. It also shows that leaving makes things only worse. I hate the idea that soldiers are killed in Iraq. I know they protect me and forever grateful. Ilana from Israel ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: christian dreams of murder...
Gautam Mukunda wrote: That would satisfy the confidentiality requirements and still do a very good job of sorting the innocent from the guilty. That seems to me to be what the government has in mind. Eventually. I don't understand this eventually bit. These people have been incarcerated for almost two years now. How much longer do you intend to hold them without even trying to determine if they are actually Al-Qaeda terrorists or people in the wrong place? I understand Rumsfeld's statement about holding people permanently, and legally he's actually on pretty clear ground. If the Second World War had gone on indefinitely, that's exactly what would have happened to POWs. I assume the official stance is that the war on terror isn't over and therefore there is no hurry to try these people. But the war against terror has actually manifested itself as war between nations. So, why can't the people picked up on the battlefields of Afghanistan be accorded trials now that the US is no longer at war with Afghanistan? Like you say, some of them may not be Al-Qaeda operatives, just people fighting for their homes. Isn't it about time that is determined instead of just assuming that most were rightfully detained? And, again, people captured in Afghanistan have _fewer_ rights than POWs. They aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions. They're really not protected by anything except the good graces of the American government. Don't the Geneva Conventions cover the rights of the illegal combatants? The issue is demobilization. We could release German POWs after the war because Germany was demobilized. They would go back home to their families and live relatively normal lives. Al Qaeda hasn't even been defeated yet, but eventually it will be. Its members, though, are never going to be demobilized. They don't need (heck, they don't have right now) formal structures to continue to be dangerous. I don't think anyone is asking you to release Al-Qaeda members, merely to determine that the people you are holding *are*, in fact, Al-Qaeda. This is an entirely new problem. No one, so far as I am aware, has dealt with anything much like this under a democratic framework. It is too soon to say with any degree of certainty but we seem to have started doing that. The SC's judgement in the Parliament attack case and the release of Gilani and Guha does seem to indicate a more stringent respect for the rights of the accused. Still, it's just one case. India's record in Sri Lanka with the Tamil Tigers might be a precedent, I guess, but the Indians weren't all that big on prisoners, either, IIRC, and they had the Sri Lankan government to help with the issue. We certainly had the Sri Lankan govt's help on the issue and it basically translated into a media clampdown and no official complaints. Our record there was bad, much worse than the official record. If you meet a Sri Lankan who lived there in those days, ask them. I did and it was rather illuminating once they got over their initial politeness. India's record in Khalistan and Kashmir is so horrendous that we definitely don't want to take any lessons from there. Oh please don't say that. Our record in Kashmir and Khalistan is so horrendous, so replete with unbelievably stupid mistakes, short-sightedness and callous arrogance that you *need* to take lessons from it. It would help you understand and avoid the obvious pitfalls. In both cases, the problem had been artificially created and we responded in time-honoured fashion: with brutal, overwhelming might. The support for the extremists mushroomed. We got more brutal and repressive. I can't really summarise the events in the two states in a few sentences but they are certainly worth a look. This de-humanising of the other, answering terrorism with armed might, treating entire communities with suspicion, a gradual erosion of human rights - I have seen it all before, in close detail and I have seen its effects too. It is worth reflecting on why the Indian state was able to completley crush out terrorism in Punjab through repression and why the strategy failed in Kashmir. There is a change in Kashmir too. For the first time in 14 years, the portents are promising. Still, it is a slow process and would take years of concentrated effort.Too soon to say where Kashmir is headed and how. Our closest parallel, as I think about it, is probably Israel. Anyone know more about the situation there than I do? I believe that the Israelis do, in fact, hold people indefinitely without trial for pretty much the reasons that I have articulated. Of course, the Israelis also allowed torture under exigent circumstances (defined _very_ loosely) up until last year. I'm not comfortable with that (although read Mark Bowden's article in _The Atlantic_ for a description of the parameters of what we probably do, and should, allow). I'd say Israel's current army chief of staff
Re: christian dreams of murder...
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:19 PM Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... In a message dated 11/16/2003 1:14:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't understand how parents who without boundaries suceed. I've seen plenty fail. I've also seen parents fail who are very strict and controlling. Finding the balance looks to be essential to me. There is some evidence that boundries are defined as much by the kids as the parents. There is a dance between parents and children. Some kids push and need limits so parents are strict. In one sense, I think this is totally false, but in another I would agree. I'm not sure which sense you are arguing from. Let me go back to my example. As I mentioned, one boundary that we had for our kids while they were in school was that they needed to perform in school in a manner consistant with their ability. The manner in which we handled Amy's (our eldests) schoolwork was strongly influenced by one event. Amy had a two page story she needed to write for a class (she was in Jr. High at the time.) She procrastinated until 8:30 PM the night before it was due, which was the time we found out about the assignment. She told me it was no big deal, it would take no more than an hour. I told her that was very optimistic and that I expected both of us to be up late that night. An hour later, she finished her first draft and handed it to me. It was a far better job of writing than I could do in a full day. I pointed out a couple of minor flaws, which she fixed in a couple of minutes. She proved to me that she could work things out her own way and that was it. My son Ted, on the other hand, said similar things in Jr. High. He was on top of things, and I shouldn't worry. But, he ended up pulling low Cs in courses he really should have aced. As a result, we gave him a very structured study environment, until he earned the right to have more personal control. We did that in a step by step manner. In one sense we were more strict with Ted, but in another, we had the exact same if then else conditions for each of them. They chose to act differently, and thus had different logical consequences. Some kids are cooperative and create their own boundries. What a parent does may be determined by the kid and not the other way around. Its certainly true that the actions taken by parents are in response to actions taken by kids. But, I was thinking more of the structure of parenting, not the individual actions, once the if then else structures are in place. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 12:49:40PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Cards are well known. Actually, no, poker is not well known. I chose my example somewhat carefully, although I did make the concession of talking about 5-card draw instead of the example I first thought of, no-limit Texas Hold'em, because I thought you would be more likely to be familiar with the former. But as far as writing a computer program to beat expert poker players at poker, that is much more difficult than writing a computer program to beat chessmasters at chess. So difficult, in fact, that no one has come close to doing it for poker. If there is more than one poker opponent, the game theory optimal solution is virtually impossible to calculate for most realistic situations, and besides, the OPTIMAL solution is very unlikely to be the MAXIMAL solution, i.e., the optimal may not be exploitable by your opponents, but unless your opponents are also playing optimally (highly unlikely) then your best strategy is not optimal but rather to maximally exploit their mistakes. Not easy to write a computer program, or even a book, to do that. The inevitablity of history in hindsight is about as valid as the inevitability of the stock market moving in a given direction in hindsight. Yes, and the fact that the stock market has consistently gone up over thirty year periods in history is a good predictor that over the next 30 years you will be more likely to make money investing in, eg., Wilshire 5000, than you will be to lose money. (There are only approximately 3 independent 30 year periods available for comparison in the US, but there is also good data on Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK, and together the historical data make a strong case) Was it inevitable that Lincoln was skilled in international affairs, or was that lucky? If not Lincoln, then someone else with great ability would be more likely to come to power in a system like America's, as contrasted with a system like Russia's, China's, or Saudi Arabia's. Statistical analysis from one case is not really that sound. Agreed. Of course, there is a lot more than one case. There are quite a few countries in the world. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:46:54AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: We normally say (I believe quoting Thomas Jefferson) that it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than keep one innocent man in jail. The problem in this situation is that, given the scale of the threat involved, _that's not true in this situation_. Another way to look at that is, would you let 100 guilty men free before putting one innocent man in jail? 1000? 10,000? At some point you have to put a limit. We have a criminal justice system, after all. It is a numerical certainty that there are some number of innocent men in jail in American prisons right now. The obvious difference is that normally WE DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE BY GIVING THE ACCUSED A FAIR TRIAL. Yes, the trial could result in an erroneous verdict, but we did the best we could, and that is usually pretty darn good. We owe no less to the people that we took out of A FOREIGN COUNTRY THAT WE INDVADED and who we now hold incommunicado, without access to a lawyer and without a chance at a speedy and fair trial. That you fail to see the difference between the two situations after all that thinking that you claim to have done is quite extraordinary. The only way to ensure that is not the case is to release every single one of them. Anyone want to do that? No? Then we need to think, not emote. No, the way to ensure that, as best we can, is to give them a fair trial, not violate their rights and treat them as sub-human by holding them for years in inhumane circumstances like some fascist dictatorship might do. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
In a message dated 11/17/2003 4:04:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Its certainly true that the actions taken by parents are in response to actions taken by kids. But, I was thinking more of the structure of parenting, not the individual actions, once the if then else structures are in place. I am not sure I can explain this well but there are some studies that show that parenting style is an unconscious response to the childs childing style. The point is that kids have their own agenda that is not that of their parents from the very beginning and that parenting style is really a dance. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:42:05PM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Because of that we are forced to make choices. Pretending otherwise is absurd, and arrogant fools can make all the claims of bigotry they want (transferrence, perhaps?) but it doesn't make it any less true. And cowardly patriots can claim that they are forced to make a choice to violate human rights because they are afraid for their own lives. But, of course, they are only forced to make that choice by their cowardice. (I suppose Erik will want us to invade Britain next). I suppose Gautam will think that the British government would be so unjust, now or in the future, as to hold people captured in another country prisoner without access to a barrister nor any chance at a fair trial? _In fact_ we have a problem. We have a group of people who are immensely motivated to kill Americans and who have attempted to do so in the past. No, it is NOT a fact that the prisoners have attempted to kill Americans. That is what a TRIAL is for, to determine the facts. Innocent until proven guilty, Gautam. Innocent until proven guilty. Our system of justice was not created with people like that in mind. people like that Has fear driven out all compassion and sense of justice? Everyone not sufficiently like oneself is lumped into the category of sub-human people like that? Treating terrorists captured on the field of battle in Afghanistan like bank robbers in the US There you go again. Fascist dictators may assume people are guilty without a trial. Liberal democracies should be better than that. The reason that we treat them differently is that they are, in fact, different. And again. No, it is NOT a fact. That is for a trial to determine. Might some of them be unjustly imprisoned? Yes, they might well be. Some of them almost certainly are. We undoubtedly killed some innocent people in Afghanistan. That didn't mean the war was not worth fighting. That was an injustice greater than holding people in Guantanamo Bay for a while. But it didn't stop us from doing the necessary thing. Gautam, perhaps hatred and fear has clouded your mind here. This is not an apt comparison. The innocent people killed in Afghanistan cannot be brought back to life. But people being held prisoner CAN BE RELEASED. Holding people prisoner without a trial is NOT the necessary thing. that we are forced to do. For God's sake, admit that there is a choice and you are not forced to violate human rights, but rather do it out of irrational hatred and fear. If we let these people go, they will go back to killing Americans. If we try them in a fully-fledged public trial, we will destroy our ability to protect ourselves from their compatriots and distort our own justice system. Your track record of predictions is not so good. I hope there is a chance to prove that you are wrong again on one of these two. Children close their eyes on the world. Adults have to live with their eyes open. Cowards and bigots take away the rights of others in order to protect their own skins. Self-confident adults extend fair treatment to everyone they encounter and accept the risks that freedom entails in order to obtain the great benefits of a liberal society. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: christian dreams of murder...
Erik Reuter wrote: Children close their eyes on the world. Adults have to live with their eyes open. Cowards and bigots take away the rights of others in order to protect their own skins. Self-confident adults extend fair treatment to everyone they encounter and accept the risks that freedom entails in order to obtain the great benefits of a liberal society. Well said. Ritu GCU No Added Value ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On 16 Nov 2003, at 1:03 pm, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:42:05PM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: (I suppose Erik will want us to invade Britain next). I suppose Gautam will think that the British government would be so unjust, now or in the future, as to hold people captured in another country prisoner without access to a barrister nor any chance at a fair trial? Of course not! And Irish internment doesn't count because Ireland is British :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. - Bjarne Stroustrup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 8:17 AM Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... On 16 Nov 2003, at 1:03 pm, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:42:05PM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: (I suppose Erik will want us to invade Britain next). I suppose Gautam will think that the British government would be so unjust, now or in the future, as to hold people captured in another country prisoner without access to a barrister nor any chance at a fair trial? Of course not! And Irish internment doesn't count because Ireland is British :) Didn't the British just have shoot to kill orders with the IRA..even though they were citizens? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On 16 Nov 2003, at 2:30 pm, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 16 Nov 2003, at 1:03 pm, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:42:05PM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: (I suppose Erik will want us to invade Britain next). I suppose Gautam will think that the British government would be so unjust, now or in the future, as to hold people captured in another country prisoner without access to a barrister nor any chance at a fair trial? Of course not! And Irish internment doesn't count because Ireland is British :) Didn't the British just have shoot to kill orders with the IRA..even though they were citizens? It seems there was a 'shoot to kill' policy at least some of the time although how official it was is in doubt. Certainly the efforts to cover it up extended quite high - but some people were tried and convicted for it too. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I speak better English than this villain Bush - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Information Minister ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 10:52 PM Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... Gautam Mukunda wrote: Here's a question for you, if you think the Declaration should guide our actions. You supported Judge Roy Moore, right? Endowed _by their Creator_ with certain inalienable rights... Not so good for separation of church and state, is it? Sufficiently ambiguous. Evolution is my creator. First, that wasn't Jefferson's idea. The idea of the enlightenment did not include the idea of human rights being a meme that evolved because it worked. Until the US Civil War was won by the North, democracies were considered very suspect. Second, Social Darwinism, even in its latest incarnation, is not science. There have been two distinct variations on this, the historical dialectic and the law of the jungle that have come out in the last 150 years, and both now have been discredited. There is no reason that the third, which has no better basis in science, will do any better. If you want to claim it as a faith statement, that's not unreasonable. But it is certainly not science. The main advantage that we have over the people 2000 years ago is that we are far richer, due to technology. We can have machines that lift us above subsistence existence. In ancient times, only slaves or serfs could do that. Yet, even though slaves were no longer required, we had massive socio-political systems in the 20th century that had horrendous human rights records, much worse than that of Ancient Rome, (at the very least if you take the atrocities/citizen/year as your measure). Yes, the US defeated these countries, but that was not inevitable. Indeed, the continued existence of the US during the middle of the 19th century was predicated on Lincoln's diplomatic ability. So, the fact that the US won the last two great battles doesn't mean that our system of human rights is a logical byproduct of evolution, any more than extreme nationalism would have been proven by a German victory or the historical dialectic by a Communist victory. It was a lucky break, just as the existence of New York, Washington, Boston, etc.** was a result of us catching a lucky break in 10-62. Dan M. ** The destruction of these cities was more certain than LA or San Francisco IIRC. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 6:43 PM Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and no. I've seen Rumsfeld state that no trials are neededthey can be held indefinitely without trial until the war on terror ends. The problems with this, compared to a war like WWII, are obvious I think. The war on terror will not end until there are virtually no more terrorists. So, the Rumsfeld is claiming the right to hold people without trial indefinitely. Dan M. And this is a real issue. There are a lot of people in that camp who have dedicated their lives to killing Americans en masse. I think there's a real possibility that they are going to be held for a very, very long time. I don't see another solution to the problem. Let me understand then. You have backed off the idea of military trials, and now think that because people were thought to be AQ operatives, and because of the risk that AQ operatives pose, the risk of them being set free after they are found not guilty in a military trial is too high, so we will decide that they just stay locked up as long as the people who are in charge sees fit. But, you just said that you preferred military justice. So is your position also in opposition to the governments, and are you willing to take the risk of a military court setting AQ operatives free? I see an obvious problem with Rumsfeld's position; a lack of internal checks and balances. If people are not brought to trial because the defense department thinks a military tribunal is likely to that there is insufficient evidence to convict someone, then I do not see that as reasonable grounds for holding someone. Further, as pointed out by others, terrorism is a much more nebulous war than any declared war, or any police action, etc. It seems that the logical conclusion from the above is that any non-citizen who is interned by people following the orders of the President has no recourse from any part of government; even military courts. That their only recourse would be threats from other countries against the US. Balancing this against the risk that AQ operatives who we aren't sure of fighting us again after release, I'd rather take the risk of that than have a government that feels the right to take any foreign citizen and lock them up forever without any standard of evidence at all. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:08:07AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: So, the fact that the US won the last two great battles doesn't mean that our system of human rights is a logical byproduct of evolution, any more than extreme nationalism would have been proven by a German victory or the historical dialectic by a Communist victory. It was a lucky break, just as Well, there's lucky and then there's LUCKY. If I'm playing 5 card draw and I take 3 cards keeping a pair of aces, I still need luck to win against someone who draws one card to a 5678. But the odds are in my favor. I think it is pretty clear that neither pure competition nor pure cooperation is likely to work as a way to run a society. While it is a good book, the society in Neal Stephenson's _Snow Crash_ is unlikely to prevail in the world for several reasons, not the least of which is that not many people would WANT such a society. On the other extreme, socialism/communism has repeatedly failed to produce any stunning successes. I think it is pretty clear that a balanced system, like the pair of aces above, has the edge. The optimal balance may not be clear, whether it leans toward the American side or toward the Scandinavian side, or in between (Britain?). But I think America's success is a good indicator of what can be accomplished by balancing cooperation and competition. I would bet that if you could set up an accurate simulation (SimWorld++ ?) that the systems similar to America's would win most of the time. If you consistently come up with the most and best ideas while filtering out the really bad ideas, you have a tremendous edge over people who are taking their choices from a broader distribution. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
Erik, you're clearly incapable of a discussion that's worth my time at this point. Perhaps at some point in the future you will learn how to talk to people without insulting them. I have more important things to do with my life than waste any more energy on you. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: christian dreams of murder...
--- ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cowards and bigots take away the rights of others in order to protect their own skins. Self-confident adults extend fair treatment to everyone they encounter and accept the risks that freedom entails in order to obtain the great benefits of a liberal society. Well said. Ritu Really? You want to talk about Khalistan, or should I? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Didn't the British just have shoot to kill orders with the IRA..even though they were citizens? Dan M. Yes. Also internment camps (as William mentioned). The concentration camp was invented _by the British_ during the Boer War. Historical illiterates should be careful about the references they use. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: christian dreams of murder...
Gautam Mukunda wrote: Cowards and bigots take away the rights of others in order to protect their own skins. Self-confident adults extend fair treatment to everyone they encounter and accept the risks that freedom entails in order to obtain the great benefits of a liberal society. Well said. Ritu Really? Really. :) You want to talk about Khalistan, or should I? Oh, go ahead. If there are any factual errors in your commentary, I'll chime in with corrections; otherwise, I'll chime in with my opinions. Unlike you, I do not feel bound to insist that everything ever done by my country's government [or, to be more precise, a govt. formed by a party I support] was a good idea or a humanitarian one. Or that if they messed up incredibly, they were 'forced' into doing so by bad, mean, nasty 'others'. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 07:37:04AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Historical illiterates should be careful about the references they use. True illiterates should be careful about misreading what was written. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 07:33:59AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Perhaps at some point in the future you will learn how to talk to people without insulting them. I have more important things to do with my life than waste any more energy on you. Perhaps at some point in your life you will outgrow your fear, hatred, and lack of fair consideration for others not like you. I hope so. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: christian dreams of murder...
--- ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, go ahead. If there are any factual errors in your commentary, I'll chime in with corrections; otherwise, I'll chime in with my opinions. Unlike you, I do not feel bound to insist that everything ever done by my country's government [or, to be more precise, a govt. formed by a party I support] was a good idea or a humanitarian one. Or that if they messed up incredibly, they were 'forced' into doing so by bad, mean, nasty 'others'. Ritu Oddly enough, I am. Apparently alone among me, Erik, and you, though, I've actually spent some time thinking about this issue. Erik's probably not capable of it, but I would appreciate it if you actually tried to answer my arguments instead of making accusations like this. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
At 09:31 AM 11/15/2003 -0800, you wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember Ruby Ridge and the controversy surrounding it. There was a lot of debate concerning exactly what happened. The range of interpretations that I saw was anything from a mistake under fire to actions that should have ended up with the trial and conviction of the agent involved. I actually don't blame the agent involved much at all. I blame the orders he was given. I don't remember the exact wording, but the HRT was given unique orders that basically told them to shoot to kill everyone they saw up there. Which they did. I remember the standoff with the Branch Davidians, and how the government was chastised for being too hard on terrorists who were planning an action that would kill as many people as killed on 9-11.*** Second guessing the governments actions was fine; it was the anger at even trying to stop these terrorists that was amazing. Private militias, talking about actively opposing the government with illegal arms were defended as true loyal Americans. Dan M. In the Waco case, I don't have a problem with them going after the Branch Davidians, although, as seemed to be routine under Janet Reno, the level of incompetence involved was quite staggering. David Koresh was a bad guy, and there were some horrible things going on out there. What they _should have done_, however, was grab him on his daily early morning job outside the compound. The only explanation I can adduce for the massive raid was to give Reno something to grandstand about. Note, this isn't surprising. Reno made her reputation in Florida (IIRC) prosecuting ridiculous ritual Satanic child abuse cases, all of which have, of course, now been overturned. I'm not sure whether she was simply credulous and believed the claims, or was actually willing to prosecute innocent people for political benefit. But something very wrong happened there. Reno's not alone in this - Jane Swift in Massachusetts (a Republican) refused to pardon people committed on similar spurious charges up there, and that was a disgrace. At any rate, Waco seems to me very different from Ruby Ridge, where they seem to have gone in with a hunting license. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com I didn't want to get into thisSigh, I worked for 3 years with one of the US Deputy Marshals who was at Ruby Ridge, and (as he related to me) no one went in with a hunting license. Don't forget Bill Degan. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fwd: Re: christian dreams of murder...
I sent this during the outage and havent seen it appear yet. Doug --- Forwarded message --- From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:31:52 -0800 Dan Minette wrote: I said: Sufficiently ambiguous. Evolution is my creator. First, that wasn't Jefferson's idea. The idea of the enlightenment did not include the idea of human rights being a meme that evolved because it worked. Human rights didn't create me, the biological process called evolution created me. How could a meme create a biological being and why would you assume that I would think such a stupid thing. The word creator is sufficiently ambiguous to encompass any number of ideologies, religious or not. That's what I ment. -- Doug Thomas Jefferson To John Adams, 1813 It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one . . . But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests, moralize for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
Gautam Mukunda wrote: _In fact_ we have a problem. We have a group of people who are immensely motivated to kill Americans and who have attempted to do so in the past. Our system of justice was not created with people like that in mind. Are you saying that the U.S. system of justice was not created with *all* people in mind? Did the founders of this country believe that there are people so evil that they are beyond redemption? I can acknowledge that they made the mistake of imagining that some people aren't really people, but we have moved beyond that error. Are you arguing that there is a new kind of evil at work in the world, which must be eradicated? At all costs? Is that even possible, without eliminating self-aware consciousness? Haven't people wiped out entire nations and cultures a number of times? Setting aside nationalistic concerns for a moment, has humanity's situation changed? What difference is there for our nation, today, other than being on the receiving end of a serious threat? _If it were, our rights would be much smaller_. As even a basic study of constitutional law tells you, American civil rights have fluctuated over time in response to threat. Civil rights during the Civil War were significantly curtailed (far more so than in any period before or since) by the man now hailed as the greatest of all Americans - and rightly so. During the Second World War the American press was generally censored to prevent it from reporting critical data to the enemy - and rightly so again. And this during a time when the press was not adversarial to American interests. Treating terrorists captured on the field of battle in Afghanistan like bank robbers in the US is the fastest way I can think of to erode civil protections in the _American_ judicial system. Isn't that a straw man, since there is a range of options between the treatment of those held at Gitmo and that of a U.S. bank robbery suspect? To paraphrase you, didn't we make the choice to have a nation that regards certain human rights as inalienable, and now we must live with the consequences of *that* choice? To be specific, I believe that never should have permitted the torturous conditions under which they're being held, nor should we ever have denied them counsel. I don't really have a problem with coming up with a burden of proof appropriate to the circumstances, just as it varies among more ordinary courts. But I don't even hear any discussion of what that standard should be, and so I imagine that our goal is to convict and disappear them, not to make the difficult decision about what is just. Nick -- Nick Arnett Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
In a message dated 11/14/2003 10:44:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just out of curiosity, if someone posted a fantasy about molesting a child, saying that the darker parts of his mind imagined it but explaining carefully that he would never advocate such a thing and why, would that be just OK? This is a difficult question to answer. It suppose it depends on the context of the posting and the quality of the post. The key is whether one can discern the motive behin posting the fantasy. I would guess that many people have some fantasy that is twisted or cruel. Almost no one acts or really wants to act on these. So why would one make such a fantasy public? The answer to this question would determine whether it was ok or not. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 9:19 AM Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:08:07AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: So, the fact that the US won the last two great battles doesn't mean that our system of human rights is a logical byproduct of evolution, any more than extreme nationalism would have been proven by a German victory or the historical dialectic by a Communist victory. It was a lucky break, just as Well, there's lucky and then there's LUCKY. If I'm playing 5 card draw and I take 3 cards keeping a pair of aces, I still need luck to win against someone who draws one card to a 5678. But the odds are in my favor. Cards are well known. I think it is pretty clear that neither pure competition nor pure cooperation is likely to work as a way to run a society. While it is a good book, the society in Neal Stephenson's _Snow Crash_ is unlikely to prevail in the world for several reasons, not the least of which is that not many people would WANT such a society. On the other extreme, socialism/communism has repeatedly failed to produce any stunning successes. The inevitablity of history in hindsight is about as valid as the inevitability of the stock market moving in a given direction in hindsight. Was it inevitable that Lincoln was skilled in international affairs, or was that lucky? Was it inevitable that the third officer of the Soviet nuclear sub. being depth charged by the US said no to launching these missles, or was it luck? I think it is pretty clear that a balanced system, like the pair of aces above, has the edge. The optimal balance may not be clear, whether it leans toward the American side or toward the Scandinavian side, or in between (Britain?). Statistical analysis from one case is not really that sound. 30 years ago most people at universities around the world thought the historical dielectic proved that Communisim was the superior system. Now, with a bit more data, we differ. But, most people in the field who were brighter than us thought otherwise. IMHO, that should be a lesson against hubris for you and me. The US has been singularly dominant for about 20 years. That's an extremely short time to write about obvious historical systematic advantage. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Dan Minette wrote: I remember Ruby Ridge and the controversy surrounding it. There was a lot of debate concerning exactly what happened. The range of interpretations that I saw was anything from a mistake under fire to actions that should have ended up with the trial and conviction of the agent involved. However, during the time, I've also seen multiple times that cops busted down doors looking for drugs, killing unarmed people. It certainly didn't get the news coverage that Ruby Ridge did. I know in Houston, at least, the cops never being convicted. I remember statistics being gathered at the time, but not the details of the statistics, There were two incidents sometime in the past 5 years in Travis County that got me upset. One was that a drug raid was done on someone's residence at 2AM. Someone was asleep on the couch, startled awake, and he sat up. He was shot and killed. The officer that shot him was not indicted. The second one was that a drug raid was done on someone's residence at 2AM, and the resident shot an officer. He was tried and convicted. I hold the person who made the decision to do the raids at 2AM that way responsible for both those deaths. And you'd think that after one such death, they might rethink their tactics before they lost an officer by that method. The local media covered it. IIRC, the editor of the local paper took a dim view of the 2AM-raid tactic. Indeed, as I mentioned before, I know a member of one of those militias who stated its too bad about the babies, but the agents had it coming after Oklahoma City. The hostility I felt, not just from this man, against going after terrorists like this amazed me at the time. I don't doubt that you can pull out some quotes from leftists who said the same thing, but this is the sorta thing I heard at work from just regular folks. I'm glad I wasn't hearing that at the time -- I'd've been livid. I was working for the IRS at that point. Until that happened, I never worried about my being safe at work -- after all, I was a good distance away from the mail room. I was sitting between two co-workers who got hysterical before the end of the workday. (I'd used up most of my emotional energy on personal problems, and I was angry not just that it had happened, but that it had happened that particular week.) Now, some of my co-workers had less than flattering things to say about the administration under which they were working, so it's not as if everyone working for the feds at that time was happy about everything the administration had done. There were people I worked with who weren't happy about what happened at the Branch Davidian compound. There was active hostility from some people about that. But nobody I worked with believed that killing anyone involved in anything like that was the solution, except maybe in the case of Kenneth McDuff (who'd been sentenced to die for a murder he'd committed, then had his sentence go to life when the death penalty was declared unconstitutional, and who'd been let out on parole and then killed again), and then only after due process. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: christian dreams of murder...
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 4:11 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: christian dreams of murder... I sent this during the outage and havent seen it appear yet. Doug --- Forwarded message --- From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:31:52 -0800 Dan Minette wrote: I said: Sufficiently ambiguous. Evolution is my creator. First, that wasn't Jefferson's idea. The idea of the enlightenment did not include the idea of human rights being a meme that evolved because it worked. Human rights didn't create me, the biological process called evolution created me. How could a meme create a biological being and why would you assume that I would think such a stupid thing. The word creator is sufficiently ambiguous to encompass any number of ideologies, religious or not. That's what I meant. I was evaluating this in terms of what you have said earlier is that things like human rights, morality, etc. comes from evolution. In other words, I was taking what you wrote in the context of your earlier writings. The problem that exists with this analysis is that, the writings of the Enlightenment are very clear in terms of the limits of reason. The Critique of Pure Reason is a very good example of this. In terms of what I've said earlier, one does not need to be Christian in order to accept this on faith, but one does need faith. I'll agree that faith in the Transcendental should be sufficient, but the idea of a deduction of morality through pure reason was not part of the Enlightenment. Self evident truths are not proven through references to science, they are accepted as true because they are true. -- Doug Thomas Jefferson To John Adams, 1813 It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one . . . But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests, moralize for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe But, you have to take this in context. In responding to this, I'll be quoting from and referencing Sworn on the Alter of God, A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson. He argues against Trinitarian theology. In it, we find the claim that Jefferson was influence by Priestley's History of the Corruption of Christianity, published in 1782. The above passage seems to clearly flow from Priestley's argument that the trinity is an unsound post biblical idea. Jefferson didn't seek to overturn Christianity., Rather, he wanted to rescue it from people whom he thought twisted it. He wrote a 46 page thesis on the true teachings of Jesus. He felt that he could do this through reason alone, without any of the techniques now used to examine ancient literature. He, indeed, had a problem with organized religion. But, he was a man of faith; as all who were part of the enlightenment were. He was not very interested in dogmatic squabbles, but thought proper action was the proper understanding of religion. Quoting from the book with quotes of Jefferson in quotes quote Reading, reflection, and time have convinced me that the interests of society requires the observation of those more precepts only in which all religions agree. In a long footnote that he ultimately did not include in the letter, he spelled out the grounds of agreement: all forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, bear false witness, c., and these prohibitions every society required. What society did not require, however, was uniformity with respect to vestments, ceremonies, physical opinions, and metaphysical speculations totally unconnected with moralityLikewise we divide over whether Christians are to be initiated by simple aspersion, by immersion, or without water; whether [their] priests must be robed in white, in black, or not robed at all. The time has come, Jefferson wearily concluded, for all these unimportant and mischievous questions to the sleep of death, never to be awakened from it. end quote Jefferson was a very complex man. He clearly believed in God, and the reference to self evident ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
In a message dated 11/15/2003 8:45:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let's just say that I think that's noticeable. I'd say some incredible discrimination is noticable. All of them are human. How about being less coy about this. There is of course a difference. Ruby Ridge was something that got out of hand. It was a trajedy. It was not the result of a series of decisions by our government to withhold rights from individuals. The prisonsers in Quantonamo are another issue. I did not have problems with them being held initially but there has to be a time limit on this. At some point we need due process here ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
In a message dated 11/15/2003 9:18:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If people criticized The Fool for positing an article Jewish dreams of world domination, would you feel the same way? No of course not. Since I agree with almost everything the Fool says I forgive him when he makes little mistakes or I don't take him seriously. Sometimes it is not worth getting all upset about things ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
In a message dated 11/15/2003 10:16:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How many people have them regularly scheduled, anyway? The lucky ones ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
In a message dated 11/15/2003 10:10:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why Jewish? Those who are taking steps in World Domination are the Swiss People! They control the money, not the Jews Which of course they got from the german jews and did not bother to return after the war ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
Dan Minette wrote: I said: Sufficiently ambiguous. Evolution is my creator. First, that wasn't Jefferson's idea. The idea of the enlightenment did not include the idea of human rights being a meme that evolved because it worked. Human rights didn't create me, the biological process called evolution created me. How could a meme create a biological being and why would you assume that I would think such a stupid thing. The word creator is sufficiently ambiguous to encompass any number of ideologies, religious or not. That's what I ment. -- Doug It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one . . . But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests, moralize for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe. Jefferson letter to John Adams, 1813 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
In a message dated 11/15/2003 7:33:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A claim for which you have _no_, as in zero, evidence. A lot of people have _claimed_ that the Administration leaked that name - all of them liberals, oddly enough - but no one has provided even a jot of evidence on that topic. What I have heard is that the CIA _itself_ leaked that information. Uh - Robert Novak attributed it to a white house source so are you calling Novak a liar? Why would the CIA out Plame? She was their agent. What would be their purpose? It makes sense only as a plant by the white house. Novak, a conservative columnist rights a column that attempts to discredit a damaging piece of evidence by implying that he got the job because of nepotism. I would also point out that half of Washington has known Valerie Plame was a CIA agent for years, so it's not as if it's a major security breach either. You will agree that outing her was illegal as in against the law won't you and that the person who did this has broken the law and should be prosecuted. You will agree won't you that while half of washington knew she was an agent that some people in the world may not have known that she was and the outing could jeapordize their lives and our ability to carry out the CIA;s mission. You will agree I would hope that once Novak made his report the White House should have immediately moved for an investigation since this represented a breach of national security? None of this, of course, came out in the press. But of course it came out in the press. I saw both of these craven arguements in the press. They were as heinous and cynical then as they are now. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
In a message dated 11/15/2003 7:45:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He refused to answer the question as to whether he has or has not. Given how frantically the Gore opposition research team was looking for evidence that he had, and how much money they were spending on it, my bet is that he didn't, because it would have come out if he had. I don't really know that, though, it's just my guess Uh - just your unbiased guess. There was pretty clear hearsay evidence that he did and as I remember his advisors knew about it. Of course Bush would never hide something like this just as he would never hide the fact that he was speeding when he was arrested for DWI in Maine. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
In a message dated 11/15/2003 7:47:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm missing something. Didn't Robert Novak claim that he got his info from a high administration official? What you are missing is the WSJ view of the world. Nothing the republicans do is wrong and if it is. lie about it ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
In a message dated 11/15/2003 7:46:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It has become rather vague since then. We _don't know_ if it was a political appointee, a career civil servant (someone in the SES could also be referred to as a high administration official, for example), or someone else entirely. All we know for sure is that the CIA doesn't seem to have made any effort to preserve her identity - because Novak himself has said that if the CIA had asked him to keep her name confidential (and he _called them to ask_) he would have done so. And they didn't. The only reason, so far as I can tell, that this became an issue at all is that Joe Wilson is a pathetic publicity hound. Which matches the pretty much universal impression of him that I've heard, so it's not exactly a shock. So now Wilson is being slammed? Did he leak this info? Did he ask to go to africa? All he did was tell the truth when his findings were made public. By the way he wasn't a pathetic publicity hound when he was serving us in the mideast. Please avoid terms like universal impression unless you can define the universe. I am sure it is universal in the WJS editorial office but not elsewhere. As to the CIA, it is my understanding that agents are outraged about this. (Saw this on Nightline where several agents and former agents were interveiwed - oh wait this is the liberal press so can be discounted as anti-american. I hate those anti-americans who risked their lives for their country and fake outrage when their own government undermines them - almost treasonist if you ask me. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
In a message dated 11/15/2003 8:05:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Indeed, I am sure that the intelligence services of the rest of the world were *shocked*, shocked I tell you, to learn that the wife of an ambassador was a spy. So easy for you guys to be glib. She was in fact a spy. She was in fact working with cover organizations. Those she worked with and for may not have known and now they do. Outing her was illegal. I guess it is ok to out an agent but not ok to have an affair and lie about it. Just so I am clear on this. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
Since the issue of Britain's views on holding people prisoner without fair trial came up, I thought I would repost an editorial I posted in July from the British newspaper The Economist. My impression (Britons, correct me if I'm wrong) is that the editorial expresses the sentiment of a majority of the British people and government on the issue. *** Unjust, unwise, unAmerican Jul 10th 2003 From The Economist print edition America's plan to set up military commissions for the trials of terrorist suspects is a big mistake You are taken prisoner in Afghanistan, bound and gagged, flown to the other side of the world and then imprisoned for months in solitary confinement punctuated by interrogations during which you have no legal advice. Finally, you are told what is to be your fate: a trial before a panel of military officers. Your defence lawyer will also be a military officer, and anything you say to him can be recorded. Your trial might be held in secret. You might not be told all the evidence against you. You might be sentenced to death. If you are convicted, you can appeal, but only to yet another panel of military officers. Your ultimate right of appeal is not to a judge but to politicians who have already called everyone in the prison where you are held 'killers' and the 'worst of the worst'. Even if you are acquitted, or if your appeal against conviction succeeds, you might not go free. Instead you could be returned to your cell and held indefinitely as an 'enemy combatant'. Sad to say, that is America's latest innovation in its war against terrorism: justice by 'military commission'. Over-reaction to the scourge of terrorism is nothing new, even in established democracies. The British 'interned' Catholics in Northern Ireland without trial; Israel still bulldozes the homes of families of suicide bombers. Given the barbarism of September 11th, it is not surprising that America should demand retribution.particularly against people caught fighting for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. This newspaper firmly supported George Bush's battles against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We also believe that in some areas, such as domestic intelligence gathering (see article), his government should nudge the line between liberty and security towards the latter. But the military commissions the Bush administration has set up to try al-Qaeda suspects are still wrong.illiberal, unjust and likely to be counter-productive for the war against terrorism. A question of integrity The day before America's Independence Day celebrations last week, the Pentagon quietly announced that Mr Bush had identified six 'enemy combatants' as eligible for trials before military commissions, which are to be set up outside America's civilian and military court systems. The Pentagon did not release the names of the accused, or any charges against them, but the families of two British prisoners and one Australian held at the American naval base at Cuba's Guantanamo Bay were told by their governments that their sons were among the six deemed eligible for trial. The Australian government's failure to protest about this has caused protests (see article). British ministers have expressed 'strong reservations' about the commissions. In the past, they have asked for British citizens caught in Afghanistan to be sent home for trial in British courts -- just as Mr Bush allowed John Walker Lindh, a (white, middle-class Californian) member of the Taliban, to be tried in American courts. American officials insist that the commissions will provide fair trials. The regulations published by the Pentagon stipulate that the accused will be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that he cannot be compelled to testify against himself, and that the trials should be open to the press and public if possible. The problem is that every procedural privilege the defendant is awarded in the regulations is provisional, a gift of the panel which is judging him. The regulations explicitly deny him any enforceable rights of the sort that criminal defendants won as long ago as the Middle Ages. Moreover, the planned commissions lack the one element indispensable to any genuinely fair proceeding -- an independent judiciary, both for the trial itself and for any appeal against a conviction. The military officers sitting as judges belong to a single chain of command reporting to the secretary of defence and the president, who will designate any accused for trial before the commissions and will also hear any final appeals. For years, America has rightly condemned the use of similar military courts in other countries for denying due process. Why dispense with such basic rules of justice? Mr Bush's officials say they must balance the demand for fair trials with the need to gather intelligence to fend off further terrorist attacks. Nobody denies that fighting terrorism puts justice systems under extraordinary strain. But this dilemma has frequently
Re: christian dreams of murder...
In a message dated 11/15/2003 8:05:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Indeed, I am sure that the intelligence services of the rest of the world were *shocked*, shocked I tell you, to learn that the wife of an ambassador was a spy. When Clinton was being impeached JDG always claimed that the democrats condoned his behavior. In fact his behavior was condemned; but not felt to be an impeachable offense. So I want one of you guys to say that this was a crime and whoever did it should be prosecuted. No more BS about everyone knew. Where is your absolute moralism in this instance. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, you just said that you preferred military justice. So is your position also in opposition to the governments, and are you willing to take the risk of a military court setting AQ operatives free? Dan M. Eventually, yes. I'd like to see the government set a time limit (I would accept a quite long one, as long as there is one) on how long we can hold people before they establish the tribunal, and then actually run them. I think the problem with that is that the tribunals will actually draw much more international criticism than simply holding people, so the Administration is (understandably) reluctant to launch them. The problem is that from what we know about Al Qaeda, most (not all, almost certainly) of the people there are incredibly dangerous, in a way that normal criminals simply are not. We normally say (I believe quoting Thomas Jefferson) that it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than keep one innocent man in jail. The problem in this situation is that, given the scale of the threat involved, _that's not true in this situation_. Another way to look at that is, would you let 100 guilty men free before putting one innocent man in jail? 1000? 10,000? At some point you have to put a limit. We have a criminal justice system, after all. It is a numerical certainty that there are some number of innocent men in jail in American prisons right now. The only way to ensure that is not the case is to release every single one of them. Anyone want to do that? No? Then we need to think, not emote. Everyone in Guantanamo Bay is suspected of being the most dangerous type of person imaginable - far more dangerous than a serial killer. Most of them, it is fair to presume, are correctly identified this way (we didn't put every person we captured in Afghanistan there - in fact, there are only a few hundred people there and we captured thousands in Afghanistan and could have captured thousands more had we chosen to, so it's only a small fraction, and the sorting presumably was not random). Some of them are people who had the exceptional bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some (hopefully all, but there's no way to know, and no system is likely to do that perfectly) of those people have already been released. We need the tribunals for two reasons. The first because it seems clear to me that not everyone in Guantanamo had anything to do with Al Qaeda - although the government seems already to have released several people, so it seems likely that those released were the ones who just got vacuumed up in the initial sweep. But we need to filter them out. The second is that it is the only way to have some semblance of due process for the rest of those captured. But we shouldn't kid ourselves about the way the tribunals will work. The judge, jury, and _defense attorney_ will all be US military officers. Most of the evidence used _will not be shown to the defendants_. The witnesses (if any) will be subject to cross-examination if present, but most of them will not be present, and most will not be identified to the defendant. Discussions between the defense attorney and their client will not be confidential (although those discussions will not be admissible in court). There probably won't be any rules of evidence that we recognize from civilian courts. Under those circumstances, we'll basically be relying on the fairness of the judge and jury to ensure a good outcome. Now, these are serving military officers who will have sworn an oath to present fair and impartial justice. That's a very strong thing to rely upon - I'm pretty confident that such a trial would do fairly well. But it won't be a civilian court. The bias in favor of the defendant wouldn't be nearly as high. That would satisfy the confidentiality requirements and still do a very good job of sorting the innocent from the guilty. That seems to me to be what the government has in mind. Eventually. I understand Rumsfeld's statement about holding people permanently, and legally he's actually on pretty clear ground. If the Second World War had gone on indefinitely, that's exactly what would have happened to POWs. And, again, people captured in Afghanistan have _fewer_ rights than POWs. They aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions. They're really not protected by anything except the good graces of the American government. The issue is demobilization. We could release German POWs after the war because Germany was demobilized. They would go back home to their families and live relatively normal lives. Al Qaeda hasn't even been defeated yet, but eventually it will be. Its members, though, are never going to be demobilized. They don't need (heck, they don't have right now) formal structures to continue to be dangerous. This is an entirely new problem. No one, so far as I am aware, has dealt with anything much like this under a democratic framework.
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and no. I've seen Rumsfeld state that no trials are neededthey can be held indefinately without trial until the war on terror ends. The problems with this, compared to a war like WWII, are obvious I think. To which Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded: And this is a real issue. We're probably going to end up with something like mental health hearings - like John Hinckley, we're going to have to decide, at some point, if they're still a danger or not. Right. World War II ended, a peace treaty was written, and the prisoners were released. In 2003, the US does not continue to hold any WWII German prisoners of war. As you and Dan point out, the same cannot be done in a war against a non-state entity. So the question becomes one of governance. Do we follow US tradition and have people from a different branch of government make the decisions? Or do we go against tradition and have people in the same branch make the decisions? As far as I can see, the Founders of the US were wise to establish three branches of government. Certainly, it is not perfect, but it does provide a governance methodology that is more likely to persuade others -- especially foreigners, who are key in this issue -- that the US behaves justly. Otherwise, the US gives the impression it behaves as injustly as one of the Arab tyrants that Osama bin Laden is against. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: christian dreams of murder...
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] At 04:33 PM 11/15/2003 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote: I would also point out that half of Washington has known Valerie Plame was a CIA agent for years, so it's not as if it's a major security breach either. None of this, of course, came out in the press. Indeed, I am sure that the intelligence services of the rest of the world were *shocked*, shocked I tell you, to learn that the wife of an ambassador was a spy. What I find so wonderfully hypocritical about this attitude is that if this had happened under the Clinton Administration every conservative in the country would be calling for Clinton's head or blaming Hillary or something. They would tie it into Whitewater somehow. And say it was another case of the Clinton's using their power to get back at someone who disagreed with them! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:49:22AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Oddly enough, I am. Apparently alone among me, Erik, and you, though, I've actually spent some time thinking about this issue. Erik's probably not capable of it, but I would appreciate it if you actually tried to answer my arguments instead of making accusations like this. Yes, Gautam, you're the only one who thinks. You're so thoughtful. With all that thinking, it is too bad you can't come up with anything better than I was forced to take away their rights because I'm afraid and they're not like me and they might HURT me!. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
Robert J. Chassell wrote: In 2003, the US does not continue to hold any WWII German prisoners of war. But only because they all died, otherwise I bet Rudolf Hess would still be in jail. Alberto Monteiro PS: oops, now I guess someone will call me a n***. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: christian dreams of murder...
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, go ahead. If there are any factual errors in your commentary, I'll chime in with corrections; otherwise, I'll chime in with my opinions. Unlike you, I do not feel bound to insist that everything ever done by my country's government [or, to be more precise, a govt. formed by a party I support] was a good idea or a humanitarian one. Or that if they messed up incredibly, they were 'forced' into doing so by bad, mean, nasty 'others'. Ritu Oddly enough, I am. I'm afraid I don't quite understand. You are...? Apparently alone among me, Erik, and you, though, I've actually spent some time thinking about this issue. No, I have spent years thinking about this problem, ever since I became aware of the way suspected terrorists were treated by my government. Erik's probably not capable of it, but I would appreciate it if you actually tried to answer my arguments instead of making accusations like this. We can agree to disagree about Erik's capabilities. But Gautam, I have been answering your arguments - if I'm not mistaken, you are the one who's not answering my arguments. Secondly, what I said above was not in response to an argument but a question I interpreted as a dig, especially given the context of that particular conversation. Still, the last two sentences of what I *did* say were both rude and unnecessary and I regret saying them. Fwiw, you have my apologies. Ritu, who was rather cranky last night ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 11/14/2003 4:43:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He's quite clear in the intro that it's a work of fiction. A 'wink wink nod nod' scenario would have been a single line which said 'Of course, I don't support this.' Instead, he wrote three quite honest-sounding paragraphs explaining his position. IMO, you're drawing conclusions that have no evidence to support them. And, just because someone writes something doesn't mean they are advocating it, and to imply they are with (I repeat) _no evidence_ is the worst kind of thought police manipulation of reality. Out of curiosity, do you object to Tom Clancy novels? After all, they contain plausible scenarios by which our country and government heads could be attacked by all sorts of terrorists, resulting in the deaths of millions. You are not seriously comparing this to Clancy are you? Oh my god there really is a conspiracy out there; I have been manuevered into liking Clancy better than something else. Lets get real. This guy is of course a nut, but his fantasy is not a popular fiction it is a wish (kind of like me wishing that Rebecca Romjin would walk into my apartment right now and do unspeakable things to me. Of course I am not planning on this but I do wish it would happen). I am also a bit suprised by the moral relativism that I see here. Some right wing nut says something horrible and a moderate or liberal complains. When the bad thing can't be denied the answer is that all groups do it. This may be true but it matters very much how often all groups do something and how members of the group respond to bad things coming from their group. The statement that everyone strikes out does not mean that Jason Giambi and I are equal. I think the right does it more and excuses itself when it gets caught. We forgive Rush for his little drug problem; poor man was addicted to pain killers and had to get drugs illegally (by the way; I am a doctor and I have serious doubts about how often people get addicted to pain killers because of problems like chronic low back pain. Most people get addicted because they want to get high). No conservative raises an eyebrow about the timing of Rush's decision to enter rehab. Do you think a democrat would get cut the same slack? So enough of this crap. Quit ganging up on the Fool (my god more of the nasty conspiracy - now I am defending the fool). My take on the article: I agree with Jon's assessment that this isn't a wink wink nod nod scenario. On the other hand, the gusto with which he provides the exact details of his little nasty scenario leave me far less than sanguine about this guy. I wouldn't really The problems with The Fool's post, as mentioned by others, are 1) He pulled the quote out of context to remove the surrounding text that moderates it and 2) his subject line further distorts things. For someone who regularly posts articles loudly criticizing the lies and distortions of other assorted groups, I don't think it's unfair to call him on it. As for the stuff about Rush, I really have no opinion as I don't watch/listen to him. I would point out, though, that he's not a politician, just a media pundit (ie: not a government official) and IMHO we have less right to outrage over his private sins than we would for someone in government. In any case, I'd bet that if a Democrat pundit or politician announced some addiction, we'd see Democrats making excuses and cutting slack and Republicans making criticisms. And with Rush, it was the opposite. To me, that's politics as usual, and one of the biggest reasons I hate politics. This brings to mind a pet peeve of mine that drove me crazy, but I've never seen anyone else comment on it... Back during the Clinton era, from day 1 of his presidency, Clinton was constantly being called a pothead for his admitted didn't inhale trial experience. To this day, I still see him called that. But then GWB admits while running for pres that he was a cocaine *user*, which I'd argue is a worse drug, with a worse usage history. The pothead complainers were strangely silent... _ Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $26.95. https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
Jon Gabriel wrote: There is a _huge_ difference in this instance between what you describe and what's on that site. I respectfully suggest you consider re-reading it, because I'm rather surprised you would make this comparison. OK, I read it a third time. You don't see the difference between the two? What I was suggesting is that you dress up both crimes in the same manner (terrible, I would never do it or advocate doing it, etc. etc.) while admitting they have a following in the darker parts of my mind. Comparing the two crimes: molestation and mass murder I think mass murder is the more heinous. Further, the second is a crime that disenfranchises a large segment of the population by killing its leaders. So basically, it's an atrocity, perhaps on the scale of 9/11, perhaps even worse, IMO. Is this where we differ? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: christian dreams of murder...
Jon Gabriel wrote: Out of curiosity, do you object to Tom Clancy novels? Oh, I do. The first book of his I read, one of his characters implied, somewhere in the first 50 pages, that Indira Gandhi was assassinated because India is such an awful place that her own security guards had no choice but to kill her. The officer wound up his rumination with: 'I am so glad I live in a country where I am not forced into killing the man I swore to protect, where I can take pride in my country and its leaders.' That was it. No way on earth was Clancy ever seeing another penny earned by me. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While we are being curious, how about a fantasy of government agents laying siege to a religious cult, in the end killing 80 adults and children? If you want a single person, how about a fantasy of a sniper who's a good enough shot to kill a mother and not injure the baby she's holding? Kevin T. - VRWC But Kevin, when a _Democrat_ does it, it's okay. Didn't you know that? It's very important - particularly on this list - to understand that crucial difference. A government sting that ends in the murder by Federal agents of an American citizen holding her baby done at the behest of a liberal Democrat is a worthy exercise of government power protecting Americans. Holding non-citizens captured fighting against American soldiers in Afghanistan prisoner, that's the first sign of fascism when done by a Republican. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This brings to mind a pet peeve of mine that drove me crazy, but I've never seen anyone else comment on it... Back during the Clinton era, from day 1 of his presidency, Clinton was constantly being called a pothead for his admitted didn't inhale trial experience. To this day, I still see him called that. But then GWB admits while running for pres that he was a cocaine *user*, which I'd argue is a worse drug, with a worse usage history. The pothead complainers were strangely silent... Just to be clear - he has never made any such admission. He refused to answer the question as to whether he has or has not. Given how frantically the Gore opposition research team was looking for evidence that he had, and how much money they were spending on it, my bet is that he didn't, because it would have come out if he had. I don't really know that, though, it's just my guess. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: christian dreams of murder...
--- ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, I do. The first book of his I read, one of his characters implied, somewhere in the first 50 pages, that Indira Gandhi was assassinated because India is such an awful place that her own security guards had no choice but to kill her. The officer wound up his rumination with: 'I am so glad I live in a country where I am not forced into killing the man I swore to protect, where I can take pride in my country and its leaders.' That was it. No way on earth was Clancy ever seeing another penny earned by me. Ritu You're thinking of someone else. I've read every Clancy book except the most recent one and in no book has he ever made such a statement, and I can't imagine that he said that in the most recent one. He's the most arrogant person I've ever met, and he doesn't seem to like India much, but he's never said such a thing. He has discussed the Gandhi assassination, but only in the context that it was the ultimate betrayal from the viewpoint of a Secret Service agent - which is what they think of that assassination, it was a quite accurate portrayal of those thoughts. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
Ritu wrote: Out of curiosity, do you object to Tom Clancy novels? Oh, I do. The first book of his I read, one of his characters implied, But if that was the opinion of a _character_, it does not necessarily mean that it was the opinion of the _author_. somewhere in the first 50 pages, that Indira Gandhi was assassinated because India is such an awful place that her own security guards had no choice but to kill her. The officer wound up his rumination with: 'I am so glad I live in a country where I am not forced into killing the man I swore to protect, where I can take pride in my country and its leaders.' And what did this officer do in the rest of the book? Did he try to kill the president of the USA? :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 04:41:04AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: A government sting that ends in the murder by Federal agents of an American citizen holding her baby done at the behest of a liberal Democrat is a worthy exercise of government power protecting Americans. Holding non-citizens captured fighting against American soldiers in Afghanistan prisoner, that's the first sign of fascism when done by a Republican. Wake up on the wrong side of bed, Gautam? Is it so difficult to admit that they are BOTH wrong? I haven't seen anyone here trying to excuse the former. The latter, however... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 04:45:59AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Just to be clear - he has never made any such admission. He refused to answer the question as to whether he has or has not. This would appear similar to your position on if you don't condemn it, then you tacitly endorse it. Why did he not say, I have never used cocaine becasue it is a dangerous drug that can destroy lives and I want to make that clear. No one should use cocaine. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wake up on the wrong side of bed, Gautam? Is it so difficult to admit that they are BOTH wrong? I haven't seen anyone here trying to excuse the former. The latter, however... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ Well, I don't actually think that holding people who were fighting against the United States prisoner _is_ wrong. The stunning inability of critics of Guantanamo Bay to suggest anything else that takes into account the difficulties involved is marked. I understand, however, that reasonable people could differ on this issue. But it seems to me that the first (Ruby Ridge, if anyone doesn't know what we are obliquely discussing) - assassinating American citizens - is considerably worse than the second - holding _non-Americans_ prisoner. Yet, oddly enough, we get hysterical condemnations of the second, and not a mention of the first. Let's just say that I think that's noticeable. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:37:36AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Well, I don't actually think that holding people who were fighting against the United States prisoner _is_ wrong. Exactly my point. How you can justify holding anyone without a fair trial and access to a lawyer is incredible. differ on this issue. But it seems to me that the first (Ruby Ridge, if anyone doesn't know what we are obliquely discussing) - assassinating American citizens - is considerably worse than the second - holding _non-Americans_ prisoner. Yet, oddly enough, we get hysterical condemnations of the second, and not a mention of the first. Let's just say that I think that's noticeable. I'd say some incredible discrimination is noticable. All of them are human. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
At 08:17 AM 11/15/03 -0500, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 04:45:59AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Just to be clear - he has never made any such admission. He refused to answer the question as to whether he has or has not. This would appear similar to your position on if you don't condemn it, then you tacitly endorse it. Why did he not say, I have never used cocaine becasue it is a dangerous drug that can destroy lives and I want to make that clear. No one should use cocaine. Would that be anything like making a statement to the effect that If you don't condemn getting blow jobs in the office from underlings, you tacitly endorse it, despite the fact that for the average person it can adversely affect your marriage and your job? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:37:36AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Well, I don't actually think that holding people who were fighting against the United States prisoner _is_ wrong. Exactly my point. How you can justify holding anyone without a fair trial and access to a lawyer is incredible. Because we are _at war_. We didn't give German POWs trials. We didn't give North Korean POWs trials. We were _at war_. These people were captured _on the battlefield_. Because they weren't declared combatants, they actually have _fewer_ rights than POWs. differ on this issue. But it seems to me that the first (Ruby Ridge, if anyone doesn't know what we are obliquely discussing) - assassinating American citizens - is considerably worse than the second - holding _non-Americans_ prisoner. Yet, oddly enough, we get hysterical condemnations of the second, and not a mention of the first. Let's just say that I think that's noticeable. I'd say some incredible discrimination is noticable. All of them are human. Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ Yet the American government is supposed to worry about the rights of _Americans_ first. That's its job. I suppose that you, Erik, would have nice public trials on all of these guys, with lawyers, and published transcripts, and maybe the names and faces of CIA informants published? That's what a full trial would require, after all. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:50:43AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Would that be anything like making a statement to the effect that If you don't condemn getting blow jobs in the office from underlings, you tacitly endorse it, despite the fact that for the average person it can adversely affect your marriage and your job? No. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
At 08:55 AM 11/15/03 -0500, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:50:43AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Would that be anything like making a statement to the effect that If you don't condemn getting blow jobs in the office from underlings, you tacitly endorse it, despite the fact that for the average person it can adversely affect your marriage and your job? No. Oh, good. blow job = good blow up nose = bad Thank you for clearing that up for me. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:03:07AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Oh, good. blow job = good blow up nose = bad Thank you for clearing that up for me. You're welcome. You may now return to your regularly scheduled blow job. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:54:38AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Because we are _at war_. We didn't give German POWs Yeah, right, Gautam. I won't even bother to argue the at war point, which is laughable, but that you would argue that human rights should be ignored during war is just sad. Yet the American government is supposed to worry about the rights of _Americans_ first. That's its job. I Of course it is, but not by stamping on the rights of everyone else. The means justify the ends doesn't hold water when the ends and the means are not drastically different in human rights abuses employed. suppose that you, Erik, would have nice public trials on all of these guys, with lawyers, and published transcripts, and maybe the names and faces of CIA informants published? I don't know what a nice trial is, but the prisoners should receive the same right to a fair a speedy trial that all people are entitled to. Innocent until proven guilty, you may have forgotten in your war on all non-Americans zeal. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
At 09:30 PM 11/14/2003 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So enough of this crap. Quit ganging up on the Fool (my god more of the nasty conspiracy - now I am defending the fool) If people criticized The Fool for positing an article Jewish dreams of world domination, would you feel the same way? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what a nice trial is, but the prisoners should receive the same right to a fair a speedy trial that all people are entitled to. Innocent until proven guilty, you may have forgotten in your war on all non-Americans zeal. Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ If you don't think we're at war, there's a big hole in New York that would argue otherwise. As is usual for people without responsibility - and as I pointed out earlier - you have, once again, ignored any consequences of your beliefs. It must be nice to be able to make every decision so easily. How, exactly, would you do this without destroying American intelligence? Or do you not care? Your position, so far as I can tell, is that we must do something that we are neither legally nor morally obligated to do and have never done in the past. But we _must_ do it now, everyone who disagrees with you is bigoted and evil, and the consequences to these actions in our shattered ability to defend ourselves should be ignored. Have I summarized you fairly? POWs don't get trials. These people _don't even have the rights of POWs_ under every international treaty. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
Ronn wrote: blow job = good blow up nose = bad Exactly. I am fully, 100% in support of blow jobs. I am unequivocably opposed to cocaine. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://aclipscomb.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:03:07AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Oh, good. blow job = good blow up nose = bad Thank you for clearing that up for me. You're welcome. You may now return to your regularly scheduled blow job. How many people have them regularly scheduled, anyway? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Doug Pensinger wrote: Just out of curiosity, if someone posted a fantasy about molesting a child, saying that the darker parts of his mind imagined it but explaining carefully that he would never advocate such a thing and why, would that be just OK? Posting it here would be inappropriate. Posting it on the web, that might be a different story. Although I've heard of a case where someone got arrested because he wrote something in his private journal (on paper) along those lines. Don't remember how they got hold of his private journal to be reading that. Anything on the web is available for scrutiny and for any reader to interpret it however they want. (It's disingenuous to selectively quote to put a spin on what someone else has on the web, IMO.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 06:22:13AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: If you don't think we're at war, there's a big hole in New York that would argue otherwise. By your definition, which is apparently not the Congress has declared war, but as far as I can tell appears to be that there are some people hostile to the US in the world (or perhaps if there are any US troops engaged in any hostilities overseas?), how many of the last 100 years was America NOT at war? As is usual for people without responsibility - and as I pointed out earlier - you have, once again, ignored any consequences of your beliefs. Ha! It must be nice to be able to make every decision so easily. It must be nice to not care about human rights for anyone who isn't sufficiently like you. we are neither legally nor morally obligated to do and Of course we are morally obligated to extend human rights to humans. That you consistently deny this is very sad. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: christian dreams of murder...
Julia wrote... Although I've heard of a case where someone got arrested because he wrote something in his private journal (on paper) along those lines. Don't remember how they got hold of his private journal to be reading that. I remember the case you are talking about. I think this was here in Ohio. This guy was on probation for a sexual offense against a child and his probation office ran across his journal during a routine home check. His attorney unsuccessfully tried to defend him with the freedom of speech argument. As a citizen, I can appreciate the freedom of speech argument (although I don't condone his subject matter), but as a parent, I am glad they found the journal and locked him back up. Perhaps that is hypocritical, but if I had to choose a position, I choose the position of a concerned parent. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
JDG wrote: If people criticized The Fool for positing an article Jewish dreams of world domination, would you feel the same way? Why Jewish? Those who are taking steps in World Domination are the Swiss People! They control the money, not the Jews. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we are neither legally nor morally obligated to do and Of course we are morally obligated to extend human rights to humans. That you consistently deny this is very sad. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ See Erik, a key difference between you and me is I tend to say things like reasonable people can differ on this issue and you don't. Reasonable people can differ on this issue. I'm not sure you _are_ at this moment in time - you're not talking like one. But I'm open to being convinced. Actually being civil would be a start. As someone with training in political philosophy, I'm quite skeptical of the concept of human rights. I believe in natural rights. I believe in civil rights. Human rights? Not sure about those. In either case, again, I don't believe that anyone has the right to try to kill me. And I believe that I _do_ have the right to try to protect myself from them. So, Erik, be a reasonable person. How would you deal with the problem? I have a solution - military tribunals. Those are better than the people in Guantanamo have a right to. They are better than North Korean prisoners got in the 1950s (note, btw, that Congress did not declare war then - just so you know). They are actually very fair, with extensive safeguards for the accused. They are supported by legal scholars like Stuart Taylor, and, I believe, Akhil Ammar (not sure about that thought). They are, interestingly enough, what the Administration has proposed. But that appears to not be good enough for you. _So suggest something_. A trial would involve compromising our intelligence sources and surely would lead to the deaths of many people bravely trying to protect the United States. Perhaps that doesn't mean anything to you - I'm not sure. What would you do about it? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember Ruby Ridge and the controversy surrounding it. There was a lot of debate concerning exactly what happened. The range of interpretations that I saw was anything from a mistake under fire to actions that should have ended up with the trial and conviction of the agent involved. I actually don't blame the agent involved much at all. I blame the orders he was given. I don't remember the exact wording, but the HRT was given unique orders that basically told them to shoot to kill everyone they saw up there. Which they did. I remember the standoff with the Branch Davidians, and how the government was chastised for being too hard on terrorists who were planning an action that would kill as many people as killed on 9-11.*** Second guessing the governments actions was fine; it was the anger at even trying to stop these terrorists that was amazing. Private militias, talking about actively opposing the government with illegal arms were defended as true loyal Americans. Dan M. In the Waco case, I don't have a problem with them going after the Branch Davidians, although, as seemed to be routine under Janet Reno, the level of incompetence involved was quite staggering. David Koresh was a bad guy, and there were some horrible things going on out there. What they _should have done_, however, was grab him on his daily early morning job outside the compound. The only explanation I can adduce for the massive raid was to give Reno something to grandstand about. Note, this isn't surprising. Reno made her reputation in Florida (IIRC) prosecuting ridiculous ritual Satanic child abuse cases, all of which have, of course, now been overturned. I'm not sure whether she was simply credulous and believed the claims, or was actually willing to prosecute innocent people for political benefit. But something very wrong happened there. Reno's not alone in this - Jane Swift in Massachusetts (a Republican) refused to pardon people committed on similar spurious charges up there, and that was a disgrace. At any rate, Waco seems to me very different from Ruby Ridge, where they seem to have gone in with a hunting license. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:21:34AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: See Erik, a key difference between you and me is I tend to say things like reasonable people can differ on this issue and you don't. Actucally, the difference is that I don't think it is reasonable to hold an attitude that people unlike me should be denied human rights. So, Gautam, is bigotry reasonable? Is slavery reasonable? Is justice reasonable? In either case, again, I don't believe that anyone has the right to try to kill me. And I believe that I _do_ have the right to try to protect myself from them. The problem is you lump together everyone sufficiently unlike you into the sub-human category and assume, without proof, that they tried to kill you and therefore you can treat them as sub-human. It may be human nature ingrained through millions of years of evolution to treat the other as evil, but we really should be reasonable enough now to realize the problems with that. So, Erik, be a reasonable person. How would you deal with the problem? If it is impossible to give the prisoners are speedy, fair trial because it will endanger US personnel, then the prisoners need to be released. Those are better than the people in Guantanamo have a right to. Spoken like a true bigot. I certainly hope you are never in a position of deciding justice, seeing as how innocent until proven guilty seems to be a meaningless concept to you. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:54 AM Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... , and maybe the names and faces of CIA informants published? The Bush administration is doing a pretty good job of this on their own. xponent In The News Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:21 AM Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... So, Erik, be a reasonable person. How would you deal with the problem? I have a solution - military tribunals. Those are better than the people in Guantanamo have a right to. Maybe not in all cases. One of the problems the government appears to be having in going to trials is that there isn't enough evidence on a lot of the people. So, its quite possible that there are still some people detained who really deserve a fair trial and to be allowed to go home after being found not guilty. They are better than North Korean prisoners got in the 1950s (note, btw, that Congress did not declare war then - just so you know). They are actually very fair, with extensive safeguards for the accused. They are supported by legal scholars like Stuart Taylor, and, I believe, Akhil Ammar (not sure about that thought). They are, interestingly enough, what the Administration has proposed. Yes and no. I've seen Rumsfeld state that no trials are neededthey can be held indefinately without trial until the war on terror ends. The problems with this, compared to a war like WWII, are obvious I think. The war on terror will not end until there are virtually no more terrorists. So, the Rumsfeld is claiming the right to hold people without trial indefinitely. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Bush administration is doing a pretty good job of this on their own. xponent In The News Maru rob A claim for which you have _no_, as in zero, evidence. A lot of people have _claimed_ that the Administration leaked that name - all of them liberals, oddly enough - but no one has provided even a jot of evidence on that topic. What I have heard is that the CIA _itself_ leaked that information. I would also point out that half of Washington has known Valerie Plame was a CIA agent for years, so it's not as if it's a major security breach either. None of this, of course, came out in the press. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 6:33 PM Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... --- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Bush administration is doing a pretty good job of this on their own. xponent In The News Maru rob A claim for which you have _no_, as in zero, evidence. A lot of people have _claimed_ that the Administration leaked that name - all of them liberals, oddly enough - but no one has provided even a jot of evidence on that topic. I'm missing something. Didn't Robert Novak claim that he got his info from a high administration official? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and no. I've seen Rumsfeld state that no trials are neededthey can be held indefinately without trial until the war on terror ends. The problems with this, compared to a war like WWII, are obvious I think. The war on terror will not end until there are virtually no more terrorists. So, the Rumsfeld is claiming the right to hold people without trial indefinitely. Dan M. And this is a real issue. There are a lot of people in that camp who have dedicated their lives to killing Americans en masse. I think there's a real possibility that they are going to be held for a very, very long time. I don't see another solution to the problem. _But_ there is no right of habeas corpus for battlefield captures. Period. None at all. If these guys were Americans, they would have Constitutional protections. They don't. People like Erik can wave their hands and make demands - but they aren't doing the dying or the deciding. Their hysteria is fundamentally a product of immaturity - they are like five years olds who want a diamond ring. Adults have to make choices and understand the consequences on both sides of actions. I _don't know_ for sure what to do here. I don't like keeping people indefinitely. I _really_ don't want to release Al Qaeda agents into the world. Military tribunals seem to me the best compromise. But either way they are prisoners captured on a battlefield fighting without state sponsorship - this makes them illegal combatants and they _don't have_ even the rights of POWs, and nothing even approaching the rights of American citizens. What the hell do we do with these guys? We can't demobilize them. We're probably going to end up with something like mental health hearings - like John Hinckley, we're going to have to decide, at some point, if they're still a danger or not. The minimum morally serious position is to understand that there are serious issues on both sides of this debate. To do any less than that is to demonstrate that you aren't even worth talking to on the topic. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm missing something. Didn't Robert Novak claim that he got his info from a high administration official? Dan M. It has become rather vague since then. We _don't know_ if it was a political appointee, a career civil servant (someone in the SES could also be referred to as a high administration official, for example), or someone else entirely. All we know for sure is that the CIA doesn't seem to have made any effort to preserve her identity - because Novak himself has said that if the CIA had asked him to keep her name confidential (and he _called them to ask_) he would have done so. And they didn't. The only reason, so far as I can tell, that this became an issue at all is that Joe Wilson is a pathetic publicity hound. Which matches the pretty much universal impression of him that I've heard, so it's not exactly a shock. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
At 04:33 PM 11/15/2003 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote: I would also point out that half of Washington has known Valerie Plame was a CIA agent for years, so it's not as if it's a major security breach either. None of this, of course, came out in the press. Indeed, I am sure that the intelligence services of the rest of the world were *shocked*, shocked I tell you, to learn that the wife of an ambassador was a spy. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 04:43:34PM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Their hysteria is fundamentally a product of immaturity - they are like five years olds who want a diamond ring. Adults have to make choices and understand the consequences on both sides of actions. I _don't know_ for sure what to do here. I don't like keeping people indefinitely. I _really_ don't want to release Al Qaeda agents into the world. Military tribunals seem to me the best compromise. But either way they are prisoners captured on a battlefield fighting without state sponsorship - this makes them illegal combatants and they _don't have_ even the rights of POWs, and nothing even approaching the rights of American citizens. What a cowardly and thoughtless attitude. Did you even consider that the US invaded another country, where obviously people were LIVING, and quite likely took among the legitimate prisoners people who believed they were just defending themselves, their families, and their homes? Or maybe people who were hiding or fleeing? I wonder how you would react if an army invaded the US and attacked your home town and took you prisoner. Do you think you should be held indefinitely without a fair trial? Tried by the army's military? What the hell do we do with these guys? We can't demobilize them. Keep telling yourself that. We can't give them a fair trial because their lives aren't as important as American lives, we can't release them because they are guilty until proven innocent, so OF COURSE we are justified in denying them basic rights. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, John D. Giorgis wrote: At 04:33 PM 11/15/2003 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote: I would also point out that half of Washington has known Valerie Plame was a CIA agent for years, so it's not as if it's a major security breach either. None of this, of course, came out in the press. Indeed, I am sure that the intelligence services of the rest of the world were *shocked*, shocked I tell you, to learn that the wife of an ambassador was a spy. That was sarcasm, right? Just checking. (4 hours sleep last night, and no nap today.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-- This is our credo, it is who we are. Our rights trump any notion of safety and they certianly trump the protection of confidential sources. Because somebody somewhere says we don't _have_ to extend these rights to all human beings doesn't mean we shouldn't. Anyone who has a good sense of history and understands why we are who we are and how we got to be here should understand that. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Where in the above does it say that you have to reside within certian borders to deserve these rights? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where in the above does it say that you have to reside within certian borders to deserve these rights? Doug Nowhere. Which is why the Declaration is a wonderful sentiment without force of law. Everyone on earth _should have_ those rights. There are lots of people who want to take them away. Because of that we are forced to make choices. Pretending otherwise is absurd, and arrogant fools can make all the claims of bigotry they want (transferrence, perhaps?) but it doesn't make it any less true. Here's a question for you, if you think the Declaration should guide our actions. You supported Judge Roy Moore, right? Endowed _by their Creator_ with certain inalienable rights... Not so good for separation of church and state, is it? _In fact_, the push to extend rights they do not have to these people is a far greater threat to American civil rights than anything done by the Administration. Make no mistake, these people will be contained. No responsible government would allow anything else. If we put them into the civilian justice system, then the judges and lawyers involved will bend every law, every procedure, to make sure they stay in jail. Those will become precedents that will redound throughout the American justice system. People have natural rights. Those are rights in the state of nature, unenforced and unenforceable. They have civil rights, rights that they get in exchange for giving up their natural rights which are guaranteed by the governments that the people created. Those civil rights are set out in constitutions, like ours. These constitutions have legitimacy when they are created with the consent of the governed. This is why British subjects, for example, have far fewer rights than American citizens (note the crucial difference in wording), yet the British government is no less legitimate than the American one (I suppose Erik will want us to invade Britain next). _In fact_ we have a problem. We have a group of people who are immensely motivated to kill Americans and who have attempted to do so in the past. Our system of justice was not created with people like that in mind. _If it were, our rights would be much smaller_. As even a basic study of constitutional law tells you, American civil rights have fluctuated over time in response to threat. Civil rights during the Civil War were significantly curtailed (far more so than in any period before or since) by the man now hailed as the greatest of all Americans - and rightly so. During the Second World War the American press was generally censored to prevent it from reporting critical data to the enemy - and rightly so again. And this during a time when the press was not adversarial to American interests. Treating terrorists captured on the field of battle in Afghanistan like bank robbers in the US is the fastest way I can think of to erode civil protections in the _American_ judicial system. The reason that we treat them differently is that they are, in fact, different. Might some of them be unjustly imprisoned? Yes, they might well be. Some of them almost certainly are. We undoubtedly killed some innocent people in Afghanistan. That didn't mean the war was not worth fighting. That was an injustice greater than holding people in Guantanamo Bay for a while. But it didn't stop us from doing the necessary thing. If we let these people go, they will go back to killing Americans. If we try them in a fully-fledged public trial, we will destroy our ability to protect ourselves from their compatriots and distort our own justice system. If you choose the second, _then be aware that you are choosing the second_. I would respect that. I wouldn't agree, but I would respect it. When you make a choice, you choose all the consequences of that choice (Lois Bujold, I believe). So the consequence in this case will be simple. Some, perhaps many, innocents will die. That is a virtual certainty. _Are you willing to accept that?_ Maybe you are. That's an absolutist position that has no grounding in law or precedent - and I would say an honest person would admit that as well. But it's an understandable one. This isn't going away. Children close their eyes on the world. Adults have to live with their eyes open. So make your choice. Choose to let them go, and choose all the deaths springing from it. Choose to try them, and choose the deaths and defeats coming from that. Choose to hold them until a better solution presents itself (and note that we have already released some of the people there). Or heck, suggest a different choice - I'd love to hear it. But for God's sake admit what the choices are. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Re: Christian dreams of murder...
At 09:16 AM 11/15/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:03:07AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Oh, good. blow job = good blow up nose = bad Thank you for clearing that up for me. You're welcome. You may now return to your regularly scheduled blow job. How many people have them regularly scheduled, anyway? Don't people who visit the president in the Oval Office generally have appointments? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
At 04:43 PM 11/15/03 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and no. I've seen Rumsfeld state that no trials are neededthey can be held indefinately without trial until the war on terror ends. The problems with this, compared to a war like WWII, are obvious I think. The war on terror will not end until there are virtually no more terrorists. So, the Rumsfeld is claiming the right to hold people without trial indefinitely. Dan M. And this is a real issue. There are a lot of people in that camp who have dedicated their lives to killing Americans en masse. I think there's a real possibility that they are going to be held for a very, very long time. I don't see another solution to the problem. _But_ there is no right of habeas corpus for battlefield captures. Period. None at all. If these guys were Americans, they would have Constitutional protections. They don't. People like Erik can wave their hands and make demands - but they aren't doing the dying or the deciding. Their hysteria is fundamentally a product of immaturity - they are like five years olds who want a diamond ring. Adults have to make choices and understand the consequences on both sides of actions. I _don't know_ for sure what to do here. I don't like keeping people indefinitely. I _really_ don't want to release Al Qaeda agents into the world. Military tribunals seem to me the best compromise. But either way they are prisoners captured on a battlefield fighting without state sponsorship - this makes them illegal combatants and they _don't have_ even the rights of POWs, and nothing even approaching the rights of American citizens. Thus, one solution might be for some state (= country, not US state) to claim responsibility for them and their actions. Does anyone think there will be any takers? Particularly since that would mean that state was acknowledging that it had ordered its citizens to attack targets in the US, which would mean that that state would be at war with the US, and do you think any Middle Eastern state could stand up against the US in a regular (.ne. terrorist, .ne. guerrilla) war? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
At 06:47 PM 11/15/03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 6:33 PM Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... --- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Bush administration is doing a pretty good job of this on their own. xponent In The News Maru rob A claim for which you have _no_, as in zero, evidence. A lot of people have _claimed_ that the Administration leaked that name - all of them liberals, oddly enough - but no one has provided even a jot of evidence on that topic. I'm missing something. Didn't Robert Novak claim that he got his info from a high administration official? High on what? ;-) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
Gautam Mukunda wrote: Here's a question for you, if you think the Declaration should guide our actions. You supported Judge Roy Moore, right? Endowed _by their Creator_ with certain inalienable rights... Not so good for separation of church and state, is it? Sufficiently ambiguous. Evolution is my creator. snip If we let these people go, they will go back to killing Americans. If we try them in a fully-fledged public trial, we will destroy our ability to protect ourselves from their compatriots and distort our own justice system. If you choose the second, _then be aware that you are choosing the second_. I would respect that. I wouldn't agree, but I would respect it. When you make a choice, you choose all the consequences of that choice (Lois Bujold, I believe). So the consequence in this case will be simple. Some, perhaps many, innocents will die. That is a virtual certainty. _Are you willing to accept that?_ Maybe you are. That's an absolutist position that has no grounding in law or precedent - and I would say an honest person would admit that as well. But it's an understandable one. I'm not even sure that a fully fledged public trial will destroy our capability to protect ourselves. I've heard this claim over and over again. If Iraq is any indication, our intelligence sucks anyway at least when it comes to the middle east. Can you substantiate the idea that trials would destroy our ability to protect ourselves. Another point worth considering is that injustice causes more people to seek justice. We may be keeping a few hundred people from attacking us by imprisoning them, but how many - their friends, relatives countrymen - are inspired by their captivity, and how many would be ideologically discouraged if we released those we can not easily prove are guilty? I think that it's highly likely that we have created a greater threat by holding these people than we would have if we let them go. This isn't going away. Children close their eyes on the world. Adults have to live with their eyes open. Adults have to realize that the world isn't black and white. One might justify corporal punishment by saying it discourages misbehavior, but of course the answer is far more complicated than that. Many of us that have raised children or trained animals have come to the realization that negative reinforcement doesn't work very well and in some cases it works very poorly indeed. What doesn't work well with individuals in all probability, works even less well with larger groups. I believe that our actions in Guantanamo and in Iraq are breeding much greater problems than those they are designed to solve. We are breeding hate in every corner of the globe and it _will_ come back to haunt us. So make your choice. Choose to let them go, and choose all the deaths springing from it. Choose to try them, and choose the deaths and defeats coming from that. Choose to hold them until a better solution presents itself (and note that we have already released some of the people there). Or heck, suggest a different choice - I'd love to hear it. But for God's sake admit what the choices are. My choice would have been to treat them humanely and as prisoners of war except for those who could be tried for atrocities or other war crimes. You say the consequences would be dire, I say the consequences of suspending our principals has a much higher price. -- Doug ROU Let Freedom Ring ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 10:52 PM Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... Many of us that have raised children or trained animals have come to the realization that negative reinforcement doesn't work very well and in some cases it works very poorly indeed. Many folks probably do have that understanding, but a more common one that I've seen is that enforcing boundaries is an absolute requirement in raising kids. In fact, its a common understanding in the mental health profession that good boundaries are absolutely essential in developing relationships with other peopple. We've set very firm but broad boundaries for our kids. When they stepped out of line, logical consequeces followed. This seemed to have worked very well. Chores could slip, rooms could be messy. They could convince us to change our minds. But, some things were just done. An example of this was the fact that we had no rules for our eldest concerning study habits. When she procrastinated and still wrote A papers in two hours, then we figured she earned the right to have her own style. But, when our youngest underperformed, he lost his TV, computer recreation, and game privleges from Sunday night until after school on Friday. As a high school Jr., he still needs to be nudged now and then, but pulling a B intead of an A in an Advanced Placement Course due to lack of full focus rates a discussion of how this fits in his goals; not a withdrawl of privledges. I don't understand how parents who without boundaries suceed. I've seen plenty fail. I've also seen parents fail who are very strict and controlling. Finding the balance looks to be essential to me. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 12:14 AM Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 10:52 PM Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... Many of us that have raised children or trained animals have come to the realization that negative reinforcement doesn't work very well and in some cases it works very poorly indeed. Many folks probably do have that understanding, but a more common one that I've seen is that enforcing boundaries is an absolute requirement in raising kids. In fact, its a common understanding in the mental health profession that good boundaries are absolutely essential in developing relationships with other peopple. We've set very firm but broad boundaries for our kids. When they stepped out of line, logical consequeces followed. This seemed to have worked very well. Chores could slip, rooms could be messy. They could convince us to change our minds. But, some things were just done. An example of this was the fact that we had no rules for our eldest concerning study habits. When she procrastinated and still wrote A papers in two hours, then we figured she earned the right to have her own style. But, when our youngest underperformed, he lost his TV, computer recreation, and game privleges from Sunday night until after school on Friday. As a high school Jr., he still needs to be nudged now and then, but pulling a B intead of an A in an Advanced Placement Course due to lack of full focus rates a discussion of how this fits in his goals; not a withdrawl of privledges. I don't understand how parents who without boundaries suceed. ^^^ work ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: christian dreams of murder...
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Out of curiosity, do you object to Tom Clancy novels? Oh, I do. The first book of his I read, one of his characters implied, But if that was the opinion of a _character_, it does not necessarily mean that it was the opinion of the _author_. Oh, certainly. But sometimes, some characters irritate me so much that I don't care to find out whom else the author has created. :) somewhere in the first 50 pages, that Indira Gandhi was assassinated because India is such an awful place that her own security guards had no choice but to kill her. The officer wound up his rumination with: 'I am so glad I live in a country where I am not forced into killing the man I swore to protect, where I can take pride in my country and its leaders.' And what did this officer do in the rest of the book? Did he try to kill the president of the USA? :-) *g* Who knows? I never reached that far. That particular comment got me so irritated that I started reading something else. Mind you, I was pregnant at the time and given to strong emotional reactions Ritu, who'll try to look for the book and see if she still reacts the same way ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: christian dreams of murder...
Gautam Mukunda wrote: Because we are _at war_. But I thought the war was over in Afghanistan and IraqAnd in the former, especially, rapid progress in nation buliding was going on - things on which future text books would be written. So perhaps it's time to try the detainees. We didn't give German POWs trials. We didn't give North Korean POWs trials. We were _at war_. Yes, but what happened when the war was declared over? These people were captured _on the battlefield_. Because they weren't declared combatants, they actually have _fewer_ rights than POWs. True enough, but even non declared combatants have a right to be tried by an impartial tribunal. Yet the American government is supposed to worry about the rights of _Americans_ first. That's its job. I suppose that you, Erik, would have nice public trials on all of these guys, with lawyers, and published transcripts, and maybe the names and faces of CIA informants published? That's what a full trial would require, after all. Um, why? As you have said, the detainees were captured on battlefield in Afghanistan - what intelligence agents are you going to endanger by establishing a case for detention? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
I withdraw my earlier question. You clearly are either drunk or on drugs. At 12:57 AM 11/14/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: http://www.pandagon.net/archives/1992.htm Murder, Murder WASHINGTON-January 6, 2004. A paramilitary organization calling itself the Christian Liberation Front changed the balance of power in Washington by a pair of brutal attacks this afternoon. A force estimated at about 200 CLF commandos stormed the Supreme Court building, killing 35 people, including five Supreme Court Justices. At the same time, a contingent of 1,000 CLF paramilitaries attacked the Hart Senate Office Building, where a Senate Democratic Caucus meeting was being held. Approximately 50 people were killed in the attack. Once the commandos had seized the building, they systematically killed Democratic senators from states with Republican governors. Here is a list of the 21 senators killed Daniel Akaka Byron Dorgan Mary Landrieu John Breaux Bob Graham Blanche Lincoln Hillary Clinton Ernest Hollings Barbara Mikulski Kent Conrad Daniel Inouyye David Pryor Tom Daschle Tim Johnson Harry Reid Mark Dayton Ted Kennedy Paul Sarbanes Chris Dodd John Kerry Chuch Schumer Joe Lieberman was campaigning in South Carolina, and missed the assassins. The attackers turned themselves in to police, and are proudly confessing their crimes, cooperating with authorities. If the governors appoint Republican replacements, there will be 72 Republicans in the US Senate until replacement elections can be held. Even if a few Democrats are named, there will be likely at least 60 votes to vote for cloture and appoint replacements for the slain Supreme Court justices, changing the balance of power on the court. Right-wing Christian posts a fantasy about assassinating 21 Democratic Senators, 5 Supreme Court Justices, and 59 other innocent people for an added bit of flavor, then has the audacity to ruminate over it as if he's asking whether or not we should have a strong dollar policy. Be careful to note, he's not *advocating* it...he's just saying, you know...he thinks about it sometimes. And has to debate whether or not this is a good idea. http://markbyron.typepad.com/main/2003/11/the_usefulness__1.html Would five extra conservatives on the Supreme Court and a filibuster-free Senate be worth the bloodshed? It is opposing evil, given some of the less-than-biblical decisions that have emanated from the court. That you have to ask tells us all we need to know. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] I withdraw my earlier question. You clearly are either drunk or on drugs. I didn't write this, a christian fantatic wrote it. It show the way some people think they can achieve their fascist theocracy goals. No. And No. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
On 14 Nov 2003, at 6:19 pm, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] I withdraw my earlier question. You clearly are either drunk or on drugs. I didn't write this, a christian fantatic wrote it. It show the way some people think they can achieve their fascist theocracy goals. No. And No. Maybe you should make more use of xxx or 'xxx' or `xxx` and also xxx and then it would be clearer which bits were written by a fanatic :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder... Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:04:03 + On 14 Nov 2003, at 6:19 pm, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] I withdraw my earlier question. You clearly are either drunk or on drugs. I didn't write this, a christian fantatic wrote it. It show the way some people think they can achieve their fascist theocracy goals. No. And No. Maybe you should make more use of xxx or 'xxx' or `xxx` and also xxx and then it would be clearer which bits were written by a fanatic :) It really would have been nice if he had posted the full intro from Mark Byron, rather than just alluding to it and brushing it aside. But that would have diluted Fool's message, I guess. Sort of funny coming from someone who constantly rails against the 'fascist thought police' and 'manipulation of the truth'. Intro follows: ~~~ The Usefulness of Civil Disobedience-Part II-The Bonhoffer Option [Update 6:30AM 11-14 - I do not support the scenario that follows. I was expressing a sentiment that we can fall prey to IF we let the combating evil rhetoric go too far. Peaceful civil disobedience can often lead to violent civil disobedience. I think the rhetoric of Operation Rescue types can help lead to Paul Hill type assassins (or for those of you on the left, Greenpeace leading to ELF); I'm trying to nip that impulse in the bud in me and in others. [11:45AM-no, the ELF or Earth First haven't done killed anyone that we know of. I had thought that tree-spiking had killed someone in the past, but my memory was faulty there; here's a seemingly-good piece on the issue that says that people have been hurt but not killed by spiking.] Why shouldn't we take up arms against our enemy? Because the US government is much more our ally than our enemy. It is a system, flawed as it is, that allows the Gospel to flourish, relatively unfettered. We need to work with in the system, not try to start a second revolution. For those of you on the left who want to label me a typically sick Christian, it's your legal right to do so, even if it doesn't reflect reality well. I've had to take down some profane comments. I will admit to having occasional violent thought come through my mind, but I do not physically act on them (at least since coming to the Lord two decades ago), and repent of them when those thoughts do happen.] ~~~ Jon Le Blog: http:/zarq.livejournal.com _ Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: christian dreams of murder...
would have diluted Fool's message, I guess. Sort of funny coming from someone who constantly rails against the 'fascist thought police' and 'manipulation of the truth'. I'm glad I'm not the only one whose been thinking this same thing... Intro follows: ~~~ The Usefulness of Civil Disobedience-Part II-The Bonhoffer Option snip Puts it all into perspective, I think... Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
