Patterico's Pontifications

5/31/2007

AP Spins for the Terrorists on GTMO Suicide

Filed under: Media Bias,Terrorism — Patterico @ 6:00 am

The AP reports on a recent suicide at Guantanamo, with characteristic pro-terrorist spin:

A Saudi Arabian detainee died Wednesday at Guantanamo Bay prison and the U.S. military said he apparently committed suicide. Critics of the detention center said the death showed the level of desperation among prisoners.

Way to put that spin up front, AP!

The article reinforces this spin again:

Defense attorneys said the death was likely an act of desperation at a prison camp where detainees are denied access to U.S. civilian courts and isolated in their cells for up to 22 hours a day.

”You have five and a half years of desperation there with no legal way out,” said Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights. ”Sadly, it leads to people being so desperate they take their own lives.”

Of course, the New York Times editors who reprinted this piece might remember that they published a lengthy article in September 2006, based on interviews with over a hundred detainees and GTMO personnel, that provided extensive and detailed support for the idea that the 2006 suicides at GTMO were a publicity stunt. That article set forth clear evidence that the suicides were designed as an act of propaganda, specifically to get people across the world to believe that Gitmo was driving inmates to suicide, and had to be shut down.

Have New York Times editors forgotten about that article? Is the AP unaware of it? It would appear so, because only in the last paragraph of today’s article do we see this:

The former commander of the detention facilities, Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris, described those suicides as acts of ”asymmetric warfare” — an effort to increase condemnation of the prison.

Further, the article provides no indication that Adm. Harris’s opinion was backed up by extensive evidence — or that it might have some relevance to the most recent suicide.

Nah, AP editors, it’s far better to put up front the claims by “critics” (meaning you) that “the death showed the level of desperation among prisoners.” That’s what the terrorists at GTMO would want you to say, after all — and you wouldn’t want to let them down, would you?

(Thanks to See Dubya for the link to the article.)

71 Comments

  1. Has AP yet published a report on that al-Qaedan hndbook for torture found last week?

    Comment by Don Surber (1e4911) — 5/31/2007 @ 6:13 am

  2. AP who can ever trust these liars its a crime the way they are always lying

    Comment by krazy kagu (5c5ef3) — 5/31/2007 @ 6:19 am

  3. Web Reconnaissance for 05/31/2007…

    A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….

    Trackback by The Thunder Run (59ce3a) — 5/31/2007 @ 6:52 am

  4. Need to Know – 05/31/2008…

    Need to Know is a short roundup of key stories that shouldn’t be missed on your cruise through the blogosphere. The number of links in the roundup may vary but if you find it here you can trust that it’s must-read material.
    Homeland Securit…

    Trackback by Blogs of War (b152ea) — 5/31/2007 @ 7:34 am

  5. [...] Patterico’s Pontifications | MSM Spins a Gitmo suicide Of course, the New York Times editors who reprinted this piece might remember that they published a lengthy article in September 2006, based on interviews with over a hundred detainees and GTMO personnel, that provided extensive and detailed support for the idea that the 2006 suicides at GTMO were a publicity stunt. That article set forth clear evidence that the suicides were designed as an act of propaganda, specifically to get people across the world to believe that Gitmo was driving inmates to suicide, and had to be shut down. Have New York Times editors forgotten about that article? Is the AP unaware of it? More Blogs of War: Looters Strike in Advance of Rita – Armed Citizens Patrol MidtownTom Daschle Has Lost His MindCrashGetting WorseLiveblogging the 2006 Elections    Posted 05/31/07 by John Little| Permalink | Email Post |  Linking In     Entry Filed under: Need to Know VA Home Loan supports Blogs of War. Learn more about utilizing VA Benefits for financing a VA Home Loan. [...]

    Pingback by Blogs of War » Need to Know 5.31.2008 - New Media to Night Vision Goggles (b152ea) — 5/31/2007 @ 7:37 am

  6. So how freaking cynical to you have to be to hold people without charges or hope of release for more than five years, and then when they commit suicide say “bah . . . they’re just trying to create bad propaganda for our system of holding people indefinitely without charges or trial”?

    Comment by Phil (427875) — 5/31/2007 @ 7:48 am

  7. Phil, holding people until the end of hostilities is SOP during a war. Even if there is evidence of complicity in war crimes, no charges are brought until the war is over. These people aren’t crooks, they’re combatants (legal or not) and criminal justice is the wrong paradigm. Get your mind out of the narrow box it’s in.

    Comment by LarryD (feb78b) — 5/31/2007 @ 8:45 am

  8. Phil,
    You’re tossing softballs again. We’re in a conflict with an ideology that uses SUICIDE AS ONE OF ITS MAIN WEAPONS. Yes, it’s sad when one of their people takes his or her own life but that is not our doing, it’s theirs. They also have the opportunity to recant and choose a life affirming ideology. And, yes, that would be our Western ideology, and, yes, I believe our ideology is superior.

    Comment by Patricia (824fa1) — 5/31/2007 @ 9:34 am

  9. Larry D and Patricia, neither of your points are in dispute. However:

    The fact that it’s SOP to hold combatants indefinitely doesn’t mean the combatants won’t get legitimately suicidal after five years or so.

    Patricia, the fact that suicide bombing is used by muslim terrorists does not mean that our prisoners in Gitmo are not committing suicide out of despair.

    Finally, our “ideology” is superior in large because of its humility and willingness to recognize diverse points of view, compromise, and accomodation of change. Islamic fundamentalism is unacceptable to me becuase of its intolerance, closed-minded judgement of others, refusal to tolerate dissent, and violent overreaction to criticism or disagreement.

    What terrifies me most about Islamic fundamentalism is not its use of terrorism. Terrorist attacks are scary in the same way that car accidents are scary — they’re incredibly destructive, you can’t predict them, and the small percentage of people who actually experience them get their lives turned upside down. Car accidents killed 40,000+ Americans last year. Hundreds of times more than terrorists did.

    What really scares me about Islamic fundamentalism is that it appears to bring out the very same characteristics that make it unacceptable — intolerance, closed-minded judgement of others, refusal to tolerate dissent and violent overreaction to criticism or disagreement — in American democracy.

    Comment by Phil (427875) — 5/31/2007 @ 10:01 am

  10. Yesterday I listened to Dennis Prager interview William Langewiesche, author of The Atomic Bazaar and at one point they discussed the odds of terrorists getting a nuclear weapon. The good news was that Langewiesche posits that it is much harder today to get such a weapon

    HOWEVER, the bad news is that he also expects it is very easy for terrorists to fashion a “dirty bomb” [ie conventional explosive spreading around radioactive elements] and believes the odds of exploding one in the US increases every year…

    NOT because it would cause substantial physical damage (it probably won’t) but because it will cause enormous psychological damange… and that is because so much of the West, especially Americans, severly underestimates or dismisses the notion that the Islamists study American culture. Indeed, Langewiesche stated that Islamists have noted how hysterical the West is about second-hand smoke and take their cues about “dirty bombs” from that.

    Comment by Darleen (187edc) — 5/31/2007 @ 10:21 am

  11. Islamic fundamentalism is that it appears to bring out the very same characteristics that make it unacceptable — intolerance, closed-minded judgement of others, refusal to tolerate dissent and violent overreaction to criticism or disagreement

    Perfect description of the American [dhimmitized] Left.

    Comment by Darleen (187edc) — 5/31/2007 @ 10:24 am

  12. There must be an AWFUL lot of suicides in prisons, huh? I mean, Gitmo is quite a bit nicer than your typical American jails.

    Comment by Kevin (e89cee) — 5/31/2007 @ 10:36 am

  13. #6 Phil

    So how freaking cynical to(sic) you have to be to hold people without charges or hope of release for more than five years, and then when they commit suicide say “bah . . . they’re just trying to create bad propaganda for our system of holding people indefinitely without charges or trial”?

    Comment by Phil — 5/31/2007 @ 7:48

    What types of detainees would be “without hope of release” given that hundreds have been released since the camp was opened? Just the hardcore ones who know there is indisputable evidence of their participation in fighting (lawful or otherwise) against Coalition Forces. These are also the ones most likely to continue the fight while detained and do anything possible to further their ideology.

    That being said, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that a lone suicide could be the result of a situational depression leading to suicidal behavior. Without more information, it is impossible to know either way yet. I would point out that even if this was an act of despair, there are suicide attempts and successful suicides in almost all confinement facilities throughout the world. It would not mean that there is anything inherently wrong with the Guantanamo facilities or procedures.

    My question to Phil would be, how “freaking cynical” would you have to be to imply that this suicide is an understandable result of unjust or intolerable treatment?

    Comment by Stashiu3 (f9262c) — 5/31/2007 @ 10:58 am

  14. It’s been a while since I commented anywhere, I must have messed up the “close blockquote” somehow. Sorry if that made it confusing.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (f9262c) — 5/31/2007 @ 11:01 am

  15. Suicide isn’t a sign of desperation?

    Comment by The Liberal Avenger (b8c7e2) — 5/31/2007 @ 11:34 am

  16. Even if there is evidence of complicity in war crimes, no charges are brought until the war is over.

    What is meant by this? We executed spies and saboteurs in WWII after drumhead tribunals long before the end of the war—when there was real evidence against them.

    You will recall that George Bush made a wholesale determination from a distance that prisoners at Gulagtánamo were unlawful combatants, and leaving aside the cruelty of indefinite detention in the absence of any way to determine the end of something so vague as the war on terror, their conditions of confinement do not appear to meet the standards for POWs.

    Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus (24eb94) — 5/31/2007 @ 11:52 am

  17. Well said, Darleen.

    I would say that Phil’s denunciation of allegations of political suicide by detainees as “intolerance, closed-minded judgement of others, refusal to tolerate dissent and violent overreaction to criticism or disagreement” is itself a terrible overreaction.

    Or were you just piling on all your rhetoric onto one specific question?

    Comment by Patricia (824fa1) — 5/31/2007 @ 12:06 pm

  18. Everyone in Gitmo could be Osama bin Laden’s second in command, and that still would not justify it. The Soviet gulags had a few mass murderers, psychopaths, etc. among its inmates (as opposed to its guards and rulers). Does that mean the gulags were justified?

    We are supposed to be the United States of America–innocent until proven guilty, rule of law, every man gets to have his day in court, etc. etc.

    Instead we have Gitmo, where all that is ignored, and such courts as exist are designed for efficient guilty verdicts. And if enhanced interrogation techniques are used, no one tells about it. The person who goes in there becomes a non person, almost literally.

    Whether Gitmo is allowable under the technicalities of US law and constitutional interpretation is irrelevant. Its existence contradicts the heart of the US’s claim to represent human rights and the rule of law. When we trot out such talk, all anyone needs to do is to trot out Gitmo, and we’ve lost the argument.

    Gitmo gotz to go.

    Comment by kishnevi (202292) — 5/31/2007 @ 12:18 pm

  19. We are supposed to be the United States of America–innocent until proven guilty, rule of law, every man gets to have his day in court, etc. etc.

    Nearly 500,000 German prisoners were held in the United States during WWII without “getting their day in court.” They were held for the duration of the war and this did not “violate human rights” or “the rule of law.” The laws of detention for a traffic stop and war are different, get use to it.

    Comment by Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 5/31/2007 @ 1:08 pm

  20. Whether Gitmo is allowable under the technicalities of US law and constitutional interpretation is irrelevant.

    Ah! The US Constitution, US law (and by inference, the Geneva Conventions) are irrelevant if it doesn’t support the feelings of kishi and company.

    Gitmo gotz to go

    Politics via bumpersticker… geez, kishi…you auditioning to be Breck boy’s new speech writer?

    Comment by Darleen (187edc) — 5/31/2007 @ 1:51 pm

  21. Unfortunately for your argument, Perfect Sense, we held the German prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Bush decided that every single one of the people at Gulagtánamo could be deprived of the protections of the Geneva Convention, without the muss and fuss of the tribunal the Conventions require to find someone an unlawful combatant (e.g., a spy). You may recall that the discovery that the Geneva Conventions were “quaint” was one of Fredo Gonzales’s contributions to realizing the ambitions of the Decider in Chief. It’s also the case that the Administration claims the right to hold American citizens caught at traffic stops indefinitely and without right to counsel, worse than the conditions of battlefield detainees, as you may recall from their arguments in José Padilla’s case.

    Even Bush’s last allies in the Iraq Adventure, the British and Australians, find Gitmo intolerable.

    I’m sure Osama finds it a useful recruiting tool, though.

    Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus (24eb94) — 5/31/2007 @ 3:08 pm

  22. Perfect Sense, you’re apparently a little too thick in the head to realize it, but you just proved the Democrats point.

    Yes, German prisoners were held here during WWII, and they were held without suspending habeus corpus, without violating the Geneva conventions, without waterboarding or other forms of torture, and without creating an offshore, extra-legal facility to circumvent the Constitution. Instead, the prisoners were treated humanely in full accordance with international law… and that’s a big part of why Germany is now one of our closest allies.

    What Bush is doing now at Guatanemo Bay is disgraceful, inhumane, unprecedented, and counterproductive. It breeds more terrorism and more hatred than it could ever possibly prevent.

    Keep making that comparison to WWII, Perfect Sense. The world needs to see it.

    Comment by Oregonian (335310) — 5/31/2007 @ 3:18 pm

  23. I would like to correct an error in Oregonian’s otherwise excellent comment. Gitmo is not “unprecedented”. It’s just that until now the precedents all belong to the bad guys.

    Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus (24eb94) — 5/31/2007 @ 3:39 pm

  24. To be POW under the Geneva Convention you must be:

    1) Fighting for a country and be under the commanded by a person.
    2) Have a distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (a uniform).
    3) Carry their arms openly.
    4) Conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    Sorry to crush your liberal fantasies with reality, but unlike the Germans in WWII, the Gitmo prisoners don’t meet the above requirements, so they are not under the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention.

    End of story gents.

    Comment by Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 5/31/2007 @ 3:48 pm

  25. Perfect Sense, you were the one who brought up German prisoners. Now you tell us that the Gitmo prisoners are completely different.

    I have to say, I saw that coming. The Administration and its loyal robots use whatever mix of POW, unlawful combatant, Geneva, not Geneva, Jack Bauer that look convenient at any moment.

    There’s one big hole in your argument, PS. To decide that a prisoner is not a POW you have to give him a chance to defend himself before a tribunal. We managed this with German spies and saboteurs, back when the Rule of Law was more important than the Cult of Deciderality.

    Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

    Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus (24eb94) — 5/31/2007 @ 4:10 pm

  26. Perfect Sense, the question is not whether the jihadis follow the Geneva Conventions. They say their morals tell them to kill all infidels and they are attempting to live up to that morality.
    We–the USA, that is–say our morals tell us to live by the rule of law and to respect human rights, and that these values extend to everyone, not just those who happen to be citizens of the USA. However, unlike the jihadis fulfilling their moral code, we aren’t. Gitmo is the most flagrant example of that. (So is AbuGhraib, but at least the latter we can explain that we are punishing that according to the rule of law.) It’s not good proclaiming the value of the rule of law if you don’t actually put the rule of law into practice.
    At the moment, Gitmo tells the world the world of law is fine, as long as you are not a Moslem. I’m sure the Moslems really love that.

    It’s all really propaganda, not national security in the strict sense. These men should be in the US, with public hearings where the evidence of their involvement in the jihadi movement can be publicly evaluated. Any tactical negatives this might engender would be overwhelmed by the propaganda value of a country actually putting its stated values into practice.

    Comment by kishnevi (db1823) — 5/31/2007 @ 5:12 pm

  27. What really scares me about Islamic fundamentalism is that it appears to bring out the very same characteristics that make it unacceptable — intolerance, closed-minded judgement of others, refusal to tolerate dissent and violent overreaction to criticism or disagreement — in American democracy.

    What really scares me about Islamic fundamentalism is that it wants to convert everyone to Islam and I am too old to be circumcised. And although I could get along without wine, I would really miss my whiskey and BLTs.

    I do agree, however, that the Admiral’s “asymmetric warfare” comment was Orwellian.

    Comment by nk (18bd9c) — 5/31/2007 @ 5:18 pm

  28. Poor Phil just had to out himself as a clueless twit…

    Sadly more of the terrorist towel heads aren’t going in for suicide at Gitmo… Just think of the tax dollars we’ed be saving…

    Hey Phil, why don’t you read the Torture, Al-Qaeda Style and educate yourself on just what this nation is dealing with?

    Comment by juandos (6b76aa) — 5/31/2007 @ 7:09 pm

  29. have to say, I saw that coming. The Administration and its loyal robots use whatever mix of POW, unlawful combatant, Geneva, not Geneva, Jack Bauer that look convenient at any moment.

    Wow, between kishi and Andrew we are witnessing some awesome projection.

    Comment by Darleen (187edc) — 5/31/2007 @ 7:47 pm

  30. How am I projecting? I’m not the one that says the Constitution and the Geneva conventions don’t apply to the men in Gitmo. It’s the Bush administration that’s saying that. But whether they are right on that point on not, they’re totally wrong on the real point–that Gitmo is a massive negative in the conflict with the jihadis. As long as Gitmo exists, this country is being hypocritical.

    Not to mention that being held without any access to legal counsel or family, for an indefinite period which can reasonably be assumed to be for years or even the rest of their lives, and without even public acknowledgement that individual X is being confined, is something that we normally associate with the Soviet gulags and not with American justice.

    Comment by kishnevi (03a14b) — 5/31/2007 @ 8:38 pm

  31. I’ll see your “projection” and raise you one sado-fascism.

    Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus (24eb94) — 5/31/2007 @ 8:59 pm

  32. Kishnevi,

    During a time of war, international and American law permits a country to incarcerate non-citizen combatants as prisoners-of-war. Based on your comments, I assume that you must not believe we are at war and that America cannot legally hold the GITMO detainees. Is this correct?

    Comment by DRJ (2d5e62) — 5/31/2007 @ 9:22 pm

  33. I do agree, however, that the Admiral’s “asymmetric warfare” comment was Orwellian.

    Anyone who says that can’t have read the lengthy NYT article I reference in the post.

    Comment by Patterico (eeb415) — 5/31/2007 @ 9:22 pm

  34. I’m not the one that says the Constitution and the Geneva conventions don’t apply to the men in Gitmo.

    Geez, kishi, at lunch time you were declaring

    Whether Gitmo is allowable under the technicalities of US law and constitutional interpretation is irrelevant.

    Senior moment?

    You might also realize that the Gitmo “detainees” do get due process through review tribunals on whether they are unlawful enemy combatants, which does satisfy the Geneva convention AND the US constitution.

    The whole legal and moral basis of removing combatants, both legal and illegal, from the field of battle and detaining them until the cessation of war is to keep them from returning to the field of battle and retaking arms against our soldiers.

    And our military tribunals have erred on the side OF the illegal belligerents as evidenced by former Gitmo prisoners recaptured or killed when they returned to fight US forces in the theater of war.

    I know I know…your feelings are for the poor terrorist and his family, regardless of legalities (but not for Americans and their families).

    Fix your moral compass.

    Comment by Darleen (187edc) — 5/31/2007 @ 9:25 pm

  35. hey Andrew

    You want Gitmo detainees released?

    Start petitioning Al Qaeda to surrender.

    Otherwise, same advice to you.

    Fix your moral compass (assuming you have one in the first place).

    Comment by Darleen (187edc) — 5/31/2007 @ 9:28 pm

  36. “These men should be in the US, with public hearings where the evidence of their involvement in the jihadi movement can be publicly evaluated”

    And why not? If in some nook or cranny of the government the specific evidence exists, and it does of course, it means that the NY Times and CNN are jockeying to be the breaker of the BIG story – ‘Bush – I Got the Evidence in my Garage (snicker)’.

    Or maybe the fact that there has been no story is the story.

    Comment by Sweetie (4b5039) — 5/31/2007 @ 9:38 pm

  37. Andrew, it is simply not true that “To decide that a prisoner is not a POW you have to give him a chance to defend himself before a tribunal.” Read it again:

    Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

    Where there’s no doubt about it, there’s no need for the formality of a tribunal. And the mere fact that the prisoner claims to be protected doesn’t automatically create doubt. It may be obvious to his captors that he’s lying. In the case of the current war, it’s obvious that none of the insurgents and al Qaeda people are protected by the convention, because they don’t have uniforms or insignia, and they fight among civilians; so there’s no need for an individualised determination under this section.

    The only objection a prisoner at Gitmo might legitimately raise to his capture is to deny that he “committed a belligerent act”, and claim that his capture was a mistake; I don’t recall what provision, if any, the Geneva Conventions make for such a claim, but this section certainly isn’t it.

    Comment by Milhouse (926d09) — 6/1/2007 @ 12:40 am

  38. I think, Milhouse, that if you’ll find very few people outside the Bush Administration who believe that the Decider can Decide wholesale that anyone we pick up is an unlawful combatant without tribunals. (The idea that the capturing party can decide for itself that there is no doubt completely vitiates the entire Convention with respect to unlawful combatants, so this can not be the correct interpretation.) Certainly our friends in Britain and Australia have been horrified by the practice, and believe it is illegal. You, yourself, provide one reason why: many of our detainees were not captured in battle, but were apprehended elsewhere, and their participation as belligerents is highly unclear.

    You also over-emphasize the importance of uniforms, as this does not apply to residents of an invaded territory who take up arms in self-defense.

    It’s worth pointing out that for practical purposes Darleen is stating we will imprison these people for life. Al Qaeda is not a regular army, and it will not surrender like the OKW. She might as well say that these men will be released when the Messiah comes. No wonder they commit suicide.

    Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus (24eb94) — 6/1/2007 @ 6:05 am

  39. Suicide isn’t a sign of desperation?

    Not when it’s an act of war. i.e., suicide car bombers, suicide belt bombers, suicide airplane hijackers, suicide kamakazis, etc.

    Comment by dubya (753723) — 6/1/2007 @ 7:54 am

  40. …the question is not whether the jihadis follow the Geneva Conventions. They say their morals tell them to kill all infidels and they are attempting to live up to that morality…

    Some morality!

    What a moronic argument that we should apply standards of humane treatment to inhumane psychopathic killers. Kiss my booty! Kill jihadis — it’s what they want you to do.

    Comment by dubya (753723) — 6/1/2007 @ 8:00 am

  41. DRJ-in answer to your comment 30, I don’t think we are in a standard, but even if we are the compliance of the current administration with the requirements of international and American law on the subject is, to put it mildly, extremely doubtful. One of the reasons Gitmo is the place where these men are being held is because the administration doesn’t want to be bound by American law on the subject.
    But even if we are at war, and the administration is adhering strictly to the legalities, my argument holds. It’s quite literally a propaganda issue: whatever we gain by holding these men at Gitmo is lost in the image of men being held for years or possibly the rest of their life without a chance to prove their innocence, reduced almost literally to the status of nonpersons. People look at that, and conclude we are hypocrites when we talk of rule of law, human rights, etc.
    Contrary to what Darleen says, the men at Gitmo do not necessarily get due process, and they certainly don’t get the appearance of due process. And appearance is what this whole conflict with the jihadis are about. This country’s moral compass, to use Darleen’s phrase, is completely misaligned.

    Comment by kishnevi (202292) — 6/1/2007 @ 10:56 am

  42. Saith dubya, obviously happy to let the Great Decider decide for him:
    “What a moronic argument that we should apply standards of humane treatment to inhumane psychopathic killers. Kiss my booty! Kill jihadis — it’s what they want you to do.”

    Dubya, what you are doing is adopting the same philosophical stance as the jihadis. You just want to make a different set of people into your victims.

    The whole premise of this conflict with the jihadis that is that WE ARE BETTER THAN THEM. THEY may go out and kill, but WE do not.

    Comment by kishnevi (202292) — 6/1/2007 @ 10:59 am

  43. Does anyone here really think that these “enemy combatants” are anything less than murdering thugs that would do anything to kill you or your family given the chance? How many have already been released to return to the battlefield? I wonder if the guy who offed himself will still get his waiting virgins.

    Comment by KeithC (b2c998) — 6/1/2007 @ 11:00 am

  44. The whole premise of this conflict with the jihadis that is that WE ARE BETTER THAN THEM. THEY may go out and kill, but WE do not.

    That’s a great theory, but when it comes dow to kill or be killed, I’d rather be killing than killed.

    If they didn’t want to kill or convert every single one of us, that would be one thing.

    But since they DO want to force our conversion or kill us, then it’s time to step up and make sure they fail in their attempts…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 6/1/2007 @ 11:10 am

  45. Does anyone here really think that these “enemy combatants” are anything less than murdering thugs that would do anything to kill you or your family given the chance?

    In some cases. even the US Government doesn’t believe that.

    Even after being cleared of any wrongdoing, five innocent men were kept captive at the detention center at Guantanamo. Today, these men who started out in China and ended up in Cuba are now free and in the Eastern European country of Albania, the only country that would take them. [snip] Many of Guantanamo’s prisoners proclaim they’re innocent. What’s different about these men, Muslims from China’s Uighur minority, is that even American authorities said they were innocent, referring to them as “no longer enemy combatants” or “NLEC.”

    More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers.

    Of course, after several years of detention and “enhanced interrogation“, they probably aren’t going home to join Republican Voters Abroad, but you never know. We put ourselves in the mess of collecting and keeping a bunch of goatherds in custody because the Administration wanted to show its disdain for the Geneva Conventions, the International Convention Against Torture, and the Rule of Law, and to keep up domestic support for this unlawful and immoral program (not one of our democratic allies can stomach the Gulagtánamo detentions), it was necessary to keep as much of the American populace that was willing panicked out.

    Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 6/1/2007 @ 12:29 pm

  46. Dubya, what you are doing is adopting the same philosophical stance as the jihadis. You just want to make a different set of people into your victims.

    Not wishing to be a victim does not mean wishing others to become my victims. When someone points (or attempts to point) a gun at my head, I damn sure want them dead first!

    Comment by dubya (c16726) — 6/1/2007 @ 7:42 pm

  47. Here’s the bottom line. Until they start rounding up American citizens on Main street in Small Town USA and send them off to Gitmo, who cares. Until they start forcefully shutting down newspapers and TV stations and send reporters and journalists to Gitmo because they criticized the government, who cares. When either of those things happen, call me up and I’ll meet you on the steps of the Capital building with my Ak. And until then, I don’t want to hear any crap about Bush and his ‘secret prisons’ for those who oppose him. It’s nonsense. Dissent is alive and well and living in towns all across this country. We have massive anti-Bush protests by PC do-gooders and aging hipsters, and there are never any mass detentions of protesters who are carted off to Gitmo, never to be heard from again. There are screenings in American theaters of a film dealing with the fictional assassination of the current president. Were any forced out of business? Were the backers arrested and detained? There are young idiots who put forth a fantastical and ridiculous film that says Bush orchestrated 9/11. Last time I checked, they were alive and well and making quite the profit off it. Bush hasn’t signed any order to extend his office, nor has he assassinated any political opposition. I hear a lot of people talking about all the rights we’ve lost in the last few years, and when I challenge them to tell me what has changed so drastically in their life, they rarely have an answer. So you don’t like Bush. Well, neither do I these days. That’s what we have elections for. Be careful what you ask for in the future. Just remember than as ‘our’ side has an agenda and wishes to project power, so does ‘their’ side. Everybody has a side. Who’s side do you want to be on?

    Comment by fngJD (49df46) — 6/2/2007 @ 1:25 am

  48. Sorry I missed your comment #33, Patterico. I was not criticizing this post or the conclusions of the NYT article. Just the admiral’s extremely poor choice of words. Suicide is not “warfare” as western thought commonly defines warfare. There are eastern traditions, such as feudal era Japanese committing hara-kiri in protest of their overlords’ policies or Buddhist monks setting themeselves on fire in Saigon during the Vietnam War. But if we call a prisoner hanging himself in his cell “asymmetric warfare”, what do we call blowing up a school bus, sniping at policemen, or kidnapping, torturing and murdering civilians for cooperating with the government? It is kind of like halving the chocolate ration being called an increase in the chocolate ration.

    Comment by nk (c66fe9) — 6/2/2007 @ 6:24 am

  49. The Founding Fathers went to a great deal of effort to give us a structure that maximized liberty and minimized the possibility of tyranny. They knew perfectly well what they were doing.

    If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. –James Madison, Federalist 51

    They rejected fngJD’s system, where the President claims the power to imprison anyone at his pleasure (this is most certainly the Administration’s argument in Padilla), but we are secure in the knowledge that this and other arbitrary and unrestrained powers will be used only against bad people who deserve it. No such tyrannical government has ever existed without gross abuse of these powers.

    The right wing likes to talk a lot about the patriotism of people who oppose the Iraq War. Two can play at that game. People who prefer arbitrary detention to the principles of Anglo-American common law and the Constitution are not American patriots; they hardly know what America is.

    Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus (9d3e91) — 6/2/2007 @ 8:32 am

  50. We already know that this discussion to try to convince each other that we are correct is futile. Against overwhelming evidence coming from the Middle East, in the form of videos and articles from sources that are clearly legit, you still seem unable to grasp the idea that the world is not a warm and fuzzy feel-good place full of good intentions where foreign enemies should be able to use OUR justice system against us to circumvent punishment. The Bill of Rights should not be extended to people who wish for the out right destruction of it. Anglo-American common law and the Constitution will do you no good in the ashes of society that glow at night from the after effects of nuclear fall out. But we all know that’s a bunch of right wing rhetoric, right? Be sure to watch the whole thing, then tell me there’s not a threat. That’s state sponsored there, buddy. But it’s all our fault, right? Of course it is. Other countries and factions have NO intentions of projecting their power or dominating other cultures. Only the USA wants to impose its will on others. America bad! Rest of the world, good! Go back to sleep…

    Comment by fngJD (49df46) — 6/2/2007 @ 5:11 pm

  51. Sorry fngJD, I missed the part where the Founding Fathers wrote all those exceptions into the Bill of Rights.

    People are always looking for an excuse to let their ids run free. You have found yours on youtube. It is nothing to be proud of.

    Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus (68b98e) — 6/2/2007 @ 5:55 pm

  52. fngJD. First of all, by the time the administration starts rounding up dissenters, it will be too late to fight it in the way you suggest.
    The problem with your ideas is that it means we are to take the executive’s word for it that these are bad people. We have to trust the government. That’s not the way the Founding Fathers set it up. They wanted us to mistrust the government, and challenge it every step of the way. That’s why the checks and balances are there. On top of that, the powers the administration claims don’t have any limit. Once you admit the principle that the executive can imprison whomever it wants for as long as it wants without outside scrutiny, you’re admitting the principle. Just because it’s applied to bad guys now does not mean it’s limited to bad guys. Bush is claiming this power over every US citizen. He’s just being nice in not actually using it. That’s a monarch with unlimited powers, not a president with strictly defined powers.

    On top of all that, there is the propaganda factor. We are doing this with all the world watching. Moslems look at us now and see our talk of human rights and rule of law as being empty show. Until we actually abandon Gitmo and such things, and start to act like we believe in the power of human rights and the rule of law, we have no hope of getting the world–especially the Moslem world–on our side. And until we get significant portions of the Moslem world to actively work with us and against the jihadis–which they aren’t, right now–we don’t stand a chance of getting rid of the jihadis.

    Comment by kishnevi (8731ef) — 6/2/2007 @ 6:18 pm

  53. The Moslem world is the jihadis, kishnevi. You make a lot of good points but you lose them the minute you start talking about getting 7th century barbarians on our side. Which is what all devout Moslems are. Read the Koran.

    As for the other “rest of the world”, I’m counting on India (mostly Hindu) and China (atheist/Taoist/Buddhist). Some hope from neo-Com Russia. The West-European surrender monkeys are already infected with your “drop-your-pants-and-bend-over” appeasement disease.

    Comment by nk (c66fe9) — 6/2/2007 @ 7:23 pm

  54. NK, it is quite possible to be a devout Moslem and not be a jihadi. But to know that, of course, you need to know something about Islam beyond the specious propaganda of the jihadis which is adopted by the pro-Bush forces as the gospel truth (so to speak). Your attitude is akin to saying that to all real Christians are faithful watchers of TBN. Nor is my view appeasement. It’s the realization that your view ultimately demands the death of all the billions of Moslems in the world, allied to the knowledge that Islam has within it forces that can defeat the jihadis, and we must do what we can to help those forces, instead of (as we are now doing) doing everything to weaken those forces.
    However, if you want to keep believing what you believe, I can’t stop you. If you want to be a docile slave to the authoritarian establishment in this country (which is not confined to Bush’s administration, and included both the Democrats and Republicans)–that’s your choice. But don’t be surprised if some of us, at least, decide that if we can’t be free men, we can at least be undocile slaves.

    Comment by kishnevi (8731ef) — 6/2/2007 @ 8:11 pm

  55. Sorry fngJD, I missed the part where the Founding Fathers wrote all those exceptions into the Bill of Rights.
    People are always looking for an excuse to let their ids run free. You have found yours on youtube. It is nothing to be proud of.

    Way to counter my argument by just dismissing it as a phobia. Are you going to pull out the ‘racist’ card for your final trick? Because we all know that’s the end all. This is about ‘ideas’, not ethnicity.

    The left always likes to describe the Constitution as a ‘living, breathing document, that must grow with the times’ when it suites their needs. You think the founders ever envisioned a society of people who are raised on steady diet of hate and suicide?

    First of all, by the time the administration starts rounding up dissenters, it will be too late to fight it in the way you suggest…

    No it won’t. That’s when you have to be willing to stand up for what you believe in, even if it means risking your life to do so. Not all problems can be solved with words and good intentions. Mankind hasn’t evolved that far yet and won’t for quite some time. That’s just reality.


    On top of all that, there is the propaganda factor. We are doing this with all the world watching. Moslems look at us now and see our talk of human rights and rule of law as being empty show. Until we actually abandon Gitmo and such things, and start to act like we believe in the power of human rights and the rule of law, we have no hope of getting the world–especially the Moslem world–on our side. And until we get significant portions of the Moslem world to actively work with us and against the jihadis–which they aren’t, right now–we don’t stand a chance of getting rid of the jihadis

    It’s pure fantasy to believe that Western culture will ever exist side by side with the Muslim world. Women’s rights? Pornography? Abortion? Gay marriage? You think they’ll ever swallow that with a smile? You’re talking about a culture that still turns a blind eye to indentured servitude, female circumcision, and forcing women to dress up in a bag with the excuse that it’s for their own good, lest some man with out of control hormones catches a glimpse of her ankles and is forced to rape her. Everything is the fault of the Jews, nevermind that they refuse to get their own house in order. It’s just easier to blame everyone else for your problems than to take some responsibility for your own actions. You think if the Palestinians had all the guns and tanks that there were still be any Jews left in the Levant? The idea that if we just close down Gitmo and get down on our knees and beg for forgiveness that the attitude toward us will change is reckless. I will never understand why lefties always give other countries/cultures the benefit of the doubt, even when faced with many examples of their bad intentions, but are unwilling to extend the same courtesies to their own countrymen. This is not about Arabs or Anglos, it’s about cultures. One who has moved forward, and one that is stalled in the dark ages. Here, I can use your own logic against you. If there were no Madrasas breeding kids who hate Jews and Western culture, and if there were no mosques preaching hatred every Friday evening and turning people to violent Jihad, we wouldn’t need a Gitmo prison. Right?

    Comment by fngJD (49df46) — 6/2/2007 @ 8:44 pm

  56. In addition after reading your comment above, Kishnevi, I have Muslim friends from Pakistan that would fight to the death to protect this country after living in an Islamic Republic. My feelings are directed toward the culture of hatred in the Middle East.

    Comment by fngJD (49df46) — 6/2/2007 @ 8:50 pm

  57. Enemies of democratic, constitutional government always have a good excuse for tyranny, from the two-bit dictator up to the very highest. I am not advocating surrender; I am advocating that our response to Muslim terrorists stay within legal guidelines.

    Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus (68b98e) — 6/2/2007 @ 9:37 pm

  58. First of all, by the time the administration starts rounding up dissenters, it will be too late to fight it in the way you suggest.

    We’ve been hearing about these Bu$hCo concentration camps for what, six years now? When do you suppose this crushing of dissent is going to commence, kishnevi?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/2/2007 @ 9:43 pm

  59. I am not advocating surrender; I am advocating that our response to Muslim terrorists stay within legal guidelines. -Andrew J. Lazarus

    I don’t see how extending the rights and privileges of a trial in a US criminal court to foreign terrorists will change any views of budding jihadists. They do not recognize, nor do theyhave any respect for the US courts, and they operate under the method of undermining and using our own system against us. Zacarias Moussaoui? Our government granted him a trial and it was a circus:

    A psychiatrist declared Moussaoui competent for trial, yet his behavior was considered ‘bizarre’. It wasn’t bizarre, it was right out of Al Qaeda’s handbook on how to deal with detention and trials in our country.

    “I am al Qaeda. They are American. They are my enemies,” Moussaoui said as he was lead out of the courtroom before 160 potential jurors.

    Moussaoui testified to his involvement with al-Qaeda, but claimed he was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. Rather, he claimed that he was preparing for a separate attack prior to 9/11.

    On April 22, 2005, in one of the court sessions at the end of the current trial phase, Moussaoui surprised the whole audience by pleading guilty to all charges, while at the same time denying having any intention to produce a massacre like 9/11. He said that it was not his conspiracy, and that he intended to free Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. According to Moussaoui, his master plan was to hijack a Boeing 747-400.

    On March 27, 2006, Moussaoui testified that that he and “shoe bomber” Richard Reid had planned to crash a hijacked airplane into the White House in the September 11 attacks. No direct connection between Moussaoui and Reid had ever before been alleged, and this testimony contradicted earlier testimony by Moussaoui that he had been intended for a different operation.

    Following sentencing, Moussaoui recanted his trial testimony stating he was not a member of the September 11, 2001 conspiracy, but “part of another al-Qaeda plot which was to occur after September 11.” When asked why he had previously lied about the previous admissions, he stated that “You’re allowed to lie for jihad. You’re allowed any technique to defeat your enemy.”

    Moussaoui filed a pleading with the header shown below. In the pleading, Judge Brinkema is referred to as “Death Judge Leonie”.

    In the Name of Allah; Censured by the United Sodom of America
    4/19/2003; Case No. 01455A; `7 S 1423
    Slave of Allah, Zacharias Moussaoui vs.
    Slave of Satan, John Ashcroft[28]

    Moussaoui filed two pleadings. The first was titled Wanted for WTC Bankruptcy and offered an accounting of “WTC profit and loss” of “Loss: 3000 sons of evil. Profit: 19 slaves of Allah.” That document had the following header:

    In the Name of Allah; Censured by the United Satan of America
    Slave of Allah, Zacharias Moussaoui vs.
    Slave of Satan, Bush and Ashcroft[29]

    After his trial, Moussaoui wrote to his lawyers…

    “As I stated during my plea colloquy, I was in the United States as a member of Al-Qaeda but was involved in a separate operation…
    Because I now see that it is possible that I can receive a fair trial even with Americans as jurors and that I can have the opportunity to prove that I did not have any knowledge of and was not a member of the plot to hijack planes and crash them into buildings on September 11, 2001, I wish to withdraw my guilty plea and ask the Court for a new trial to prove my innocence of the September 11 plot.”

    This went on and on, costing taxpayers millions of dollars and countless more in appeals so this guy can make a mockery of our judicial system. We gave him a fair trial. Did it change anything? In closing, I do believe that Jose Padilla should be awarded a fair trial, because he is a legal citizen of this country.

    Comment by fngJD (49df46) — 6/2/2007 @ 11:07 pm

  60. When they caught KSM, he said something to the effect that he wouldn’t talk until he got to NYC and the court appointed a lawyer for him. Straight out of al Queda’s Playbook.

    Surprise, surprise! These aren’t arrests for criminal court cases, these are detention of unlawful combatants in a war they started.

    Comment by dubya (c16726) — 6/3/2007 @ 2:19 pm

  61. We do, on occasion, realize that Gitmo is not appropriate for some terrorists.

    Comment by nk (c66fe9) — 6/3/2007 @ 2:40 pm

  62. And dad said learning to fly the remote-control plane, and my video games, would never be useful…

    You know some 20-something was the guy that pushed the red button on that hellfire, and when the car exploded, he yelled “PWNED, bitch!!”

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/3/2007 @ 3:04 pm

  63. fngJD–there are plenty of DEVOUT Moslems who don’t believe in burqas, female genital mutilation, and hate filled madrasas. Ignore them at your peril. Without them you can’t win the struggle with the jihadis. If you want to pretend they don’t count, then simply crawl back into the ignorant xenophobia you prefer, and don’t come to argue with me. But remember the Founding Fathers had plenty of experience to go on in dealing with cultures built on religious hatred–European history from 1500-1700. And it didn’t stop there. My grandparents left Russia to escape a society in which a large segment of the population thought the New Testament gave them enough reasons to rob, beat, maim, rape and outright kill any Jews they wanted when they wanted to. And enough of that type of people remained in Europe to help the Nazis kill the relatives who didn’t leave, and almost six million others, during WWII. Don’t be fooled into thinking we are that much ahead of the Moslems in the religious hatred department.

    Pablo-I’m not saying Bush is going to start concentration camps himself. But the powers he claims, and which is he exercising on those unlawful combatants in Gitmo, are claimed on a basis that doesn’t recognize the distinction between them and you. He’s claiming power to do this to anyone he wants, US citizen or not. He’s claiming the power to do to you that he’s doing to them. He just chooses not to do it at the moment to you or Cindy Sheehan.

    Think of it this way: if some FBI agent got pissed off at you, he could arrange for you to be targeted as a terrorist, arrested and sent off to Gitmo. And under the Bush rules, not only would you have no way of proving you’re not a terrorist, you’d have to thank what lucky stars you have left that you aren’t subject to enhanced interrogation, but simply left to waste the rest of your life in confinement.

    I will agree that’s not a likely scenario, but why should the only thing keeping you from such a situation be the fact that you haven’t pissed off the wrong person somehow? The Constitution was built on the premise that people in power will abuse that power if they aren’t kept within strict limits. Do you really want to abandon that just because you think Bush is acting in good faith? What about the future president who decides to act in bad faith?

    Comment by kishnevi (db1823) — 6/3/2007 @ 6:21 pm

  64. Kishnevi wrote: there are plenty of DEVOUT Moslems who don’t believe in burqas, female genital mutilation, and hate filled madrasas.Ignore them at your peril. Without them you can’t win the struggle with the jihadis. If you want to pretend they don’t count, then simply crawl back into the ignorant xenophobia you prefer, and don’t come to argue with me.

    —————–
    Hey smart guy, re-read my comment before you make any more attempts to assassinate my character. I said I PERSONALLY KNOW Muslims who don’t follow the idea of violent Jihad, and that I am not against them. I was stating that before you could counter with your claims of my ignorance and xenophobia like you did above anyway.

    Show me in my comments where I said, “All ‘dem Muslims are nothin’ but terrorists!!” I even stated above, which you obiviously overlooked in your zeal to paint me as xenophobic, that I am only against the culture of violent Jihad, and NOT Muslims like the people I call friends and share my home with. YOU FAIL.

    Comment by fngJD (49df46) — 6/3/2007 @ 7:25 pm

  65. It’s a fact that the detainee’s held in GTMO use suicide as a tool for propaganda. Its a basis in how they are trained. Read the “alquida training handbook” it tells them that suicide is a form of propaganda.

    The fact that they are being heald without trial means nothing to me. Look at the trials we heald after world war 2, the entire world punished people for war crimes. What is being done is no different. People are breaking laws. Using children as armor. Hiding in schools while shooting at soilders. I say leave them in the cells, let them sit there for an undetermined amount of time.

    As far as epole saying that Bush could do this to a US citizen. That full of shit, the reason the detainees dont get the same rights to trial as us US citizens is that fact that they are not citizens. They are not protected by the geneva convention. They are nothing but terrorists that get what they deserve.

    But then again i am sure all you terrosist lovers out there agree that theres nothing wrong with detainees faking suicide and attacking the guards who are told they have to work there. Spitting on them, throwing blood, feces, urine and boldily secretions on the people who have no choice but to do there time working there. I mean sure the US could treat them better. But then again, the US could treat them the same way that their own governments are treating them. Throwing them in cages with so many people in them that they cant sit down, barely get to eat.

    ALL IN ALL, THEY ARE TREATED BETTER THEN THEY NEED TO BE TREATED AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE WAY THE PLACE IS BEING RUN. SURE A DETAINEE KILLS HIMSELF, ITS WHAT THEY ARE TRAINED TO DO. BUT THEN EVERYONE HAS TO CRY ABOUT IT. FUCK CRYING; THESE PEOPLE ARE GIVING OTHER PEOPLE JUSTICE BY TAKING THEIR OWN LIFE, SO THEY CANT GET SET FREE AND GO BACK TO KILLING AGAIN.

    Comment by Cold Hard Fact's (1d7c03) — 6/4/2007 @ 12:04 pm

  66. Jus a small side note to add. You dont bealive that the detainees there are enemy combatants? Several detainees that had been released have been found and sent back to cuba due to involvement in terrorists acts or were killed by marines after they attacked them. So please tell me that its just coincidence and ill show you someone who needs to learn to open his/her mind.

    Comment by Cold Hard Fact's (1d7c03) — 6/4/2007 @ 12:16 pm

  67. Pablo-I’m not saying Bush is going to start concentration camps himself. But the powers he claims, and which is he exercising on those unlawful combatants in Gitmo, are claimed on a basis that doesn’t recognize the distinction between them and you.

    1. Uh, no.

    2. If you’re not saying Bush is going to start rounding people up and plunking them in detention, then why did you say:

    First of all, by the time the administration starts rounding up dissenters, it will be too late to fight it in the way you suggest.

    What dissenters are being rounded up? Who’s been shipped off to Gitmo? What basis is it that doesn’t recognize the difference between an foreign unlawful combatant, and an American citizen?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/4/2007 @ 1:23 pm

  68. fngJD–you said, “the Muslim world is the jihadis”. A fairly broad statement, I should think. And in acknowledging your Pakistani friends[why am I reminded of "some of my best friends are Jewish"?] you gave no indication that they remain what you consider devout Moslems. Your own words made you seem to condemn all and any religious Muslims as jihadis, and conform to the line (equally convenient to the jihadis and xenophobes) that the only truly believing Moslems are those who conform to the jihadis. But I don’t need to lecture you. Ask your Pakistani acquaintances why the US is alienating non-jihadi devout Moslems, and why those nonjihadi devout Moslems are far more important to the conflict with the jihadis than anything the US military can do.

    You aren’t a xenophobe? Fine by me. I apologize. But I suggest you change the way you make your argument, because you sure talk like all the xenophobes I’ve encountered.

    Comment by kishnevi (3b614c) — 6/4/2007 @ 6:10 pm

  69. Pablo–referring to “the administration” was a late night slip of the keyboard. What I meant was the US government/executive under whatever future president decides his political necessities justify such a step.

    The (Current) administration claims don’t recognize any distinction between citizen and non citizen. Mr. Hamdi and Mr. Padilla are of course notorious examples of this claim in practice. But the power being claimed doesn’t distinguish between citizen and non citizen. Most important, it leaves all decision making, without the possibility of outside review, in the hands of the executive. And, as I said above, President Bush may be acting in good faith and playing “nice”, but that doesn’t mean some future president, if this claim of unimpeded power is not put out to pasture, won’t use it in bad faith and playing ugly.

    It’s the principle behind the claim that is toxic, not how it’s being applied at the present moment. But the principle is poison and has to be stopped now before it’s applied in a manner that is toxic.

    Comment by kishnevi (3b614c) — 6/4/2007 @ 6:25 pm

  70. And, as I said above, President Bush may be acting in good faith and playing “nice”, but that doesn’t mean some future president, if this claim of unimpeded power is not put out to pasture, won’t use it in bad faith and playing ugly.

    That’s why folks have to vote for the person who’s most trustworthy.

    Comment by dubya (c16726) — 6/4/2007 @ 6:41 pm

  71. Vote for the most trustworthy person? Can you really depend on the most trustworthy person to win a presidential election? Clinton, that beacon of honesty and integrity, was elected twice. In my own personal opinion, GWBush proved he had no integrity by the simple fact that he ran for president–a position for which he had no real qualifications. Given what it takes to become a serious candidate for president these days, can you even think of any candidate as being trustworthy?

    No, you can’t depend on the electoral process to keep untrustworthy people out of office, even if you don’t share my view that as it is now run, it guarantees an untrustworthy person will come into office.

    The only sure solution is to destroy the weapon. An untrustworthy person can’t abuse a power that does not exist.

    Comment by kishnevi (3b614c) — 6/4/2007 @ 8:06 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2993 secs.