Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bush outlaws war protests


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

In one of his most chilling moves to date against his own citizens, the American War Leader has issued a sweeping order this week outlawing all

forms of protest against the Iraq war.

President Bush enacted into US law an ‘Executive Order’ on July 17th titled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization

Efforts in Iraq", and which says:

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA),

and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security

and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote

economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the

United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded

in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and

Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004."

According to Russian legal experts, the greatest concern to the American people are the underlying provisions of this new law, and which, they

state, are written ‘so broadly’ as to outlaw all forms of protest against the war.  These provisions state:

 "(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support

of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(B) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds,

goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the

receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

© the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United

States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the

provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken."

To the subsection of this new US law, according to these legal experts, that says "...the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or

services by, to, or for the benefit...", the insertion of the word ‘services’ has broad, and catastrophic, consequences for the American people in that

any act deemed by their government to be against the Iraqi war is, in fact, supporting the ‘enemy’ and therefore threatens the ‘stabilization of

Iraq’.

In an even greater affront to the American people are the provisions of a law called The Patriot Act, and that should they run afoul of this new law

they are forbidden to allow anyone to know about it, and as we can read as reported by the Seattle Times News Service:

"The [Patriot] act also expands the use of National Security Letters, which are a kind of warrant that the Justice Department writes for itself,

authorizing its agents to seize such things as records of money movements, telephone calls and Internet visits. Recipients of a National Security

Letter are not allowed to tell anyone about them, and so cannot contest them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That is extraordinary! I cannot understand how he continues to make such fatal errors.

Do you have a link for the Russian story, and for the Executive Order?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt

Assuming this is factually correct, then "chilling" is the right word. But it cannot entirely come as a surprise, surely? This is the first of the fruit yield from 911, in my view.

I would also suggest that this EO will broaden in time to include not just protests against the war in Iraq but any civil disobedience. Did anyone note that the "blocking property of certain persons" is not an awful long way from confiscation/sequestering of property that Hitler and the nazis that I understand was slowly and carefully introduced under the Nuremburg Laws of 15th September 1935?

This also very clealy indicates that the war in Iraq will continue in to the unforeseeable future and will not be reeled back by the democrats. It also is suggestive that the hinted "perpetual war" ideology that was made by the Administration of 911 is to be taken seriously. George Orwell saw it coming and wrotr about it, and now it's arriving on your doorsteps with the morning newspaper.

Also:

Quote:

the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Unquote

I have italicised "foreign branches" not out of witticism but because dear old Blighty is a "foreign branch" of the US -- and Brown's apparent cautious foreign policy not-with-standing -- what happens in Uncle happens here afterwards.

Hitting people in their wallet and blocking (and doubtless eventually seizing) their entire assets will turn 99.9999% of the population into compliant and fearful citizens.

Land of the free be damned...

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see the calls for impeachment being only strengthened by this move.

I don't. Impeachment has as much chance as an icecube in H#LL.

Perhaps something like THIS is one of the reasons for the new EO.

U.S. Treasury Designates Syria’s Shawkat as Terror Supporter, January 18, 2006

(Designation freezes all Shawkat’s assets under U.S. control)

The U.S. Treasury Department January 18 designated Syrian Military Intelligence Director Assef Shawkat as a supporter of terrorism for his role in Syrian interference in Lebanon and for his support of terrorist activity against Israel.

“As the Director of Syrian Military Intelligence, Shawkat has been a key architect of Syria’s domination of Lebanon, as well as a fundamental contributor to Syria’s long-standing policy to foment terrorism against Israel,” said Stuart Levey, Treasury’s under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.

The designation freezes all Shawkat’s assets under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibits U.S. entities from engaging in transactions with him.

The Treasury Department based its designation on information about the extensive ties Shawkat maintains with Lebanese and Palestinian terrorist organizations as well as his direct role in overseeing Syria’s military and security presence in neighboring Lebanon.

Following is the text of the Treasury Department’s announcement:

(begin text)

U.S. Department of the Treasury

January 18, 2006

Treasury Designates Director of Syrian Military Intelligence

The U.S. Department of the Treasury today named Assef Shawkat a Specially Designated National (SDN) of Syria pursuant to Executive Order 13338, for directly furthering the Government of Syria’s support for terrorism and interference in the sovereignty of Lebanon.

“As the Director of Syrian Military Intelligence, Shawkat has been a key architect of Syria’s domination of Lebanon, as well as a fundamental contributor to Syria’s long-standing policy to foment terrorism against Israel,” said Stuart Levey, Treasury’s Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI).

Today’s designation freezes any assets Shawkat may have located under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in transactions with him.

Identifier Information

Assef Shawkat

Title: Director of Syrian Military Intelligence

DOB: 1950

POB: Tartus, Syria

Nationality: Syria

Address: Al-Akkad Street, Damascus, Syria

Major General Assef Shawkat is the Director of Syrian Military Intelligence (SMI), the strongest and most influential security service in Syria. Its broad internal and external responsibilities include working with terrorist organizations resident in Syria and overseeing the Syrian security presence in Lebanon.

In addition to the power he derives from his position, Shawkat also has access to the highest levels of the Syrian power structure by virtue of his marriage to Bushra al-Asad, the sister to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Shawkat is a close confidant of President Assad and an important member of his inner circle of advisors.

Through his position as Director of SMI, Shawkat has directed and significantly contributed to the Government of Syria’s support for terrorism, including coordination with Specially Designated Global Terrorists Hizballah, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (”PFLP-GC”), Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (”PIJ”).

Information indicates that in 2005, Shawkat met with Hizballah Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah, PFLP-GC chief Ahmad Jibril, PIJ Secretary General Ramadan Shallah, in addition to Hamas and PIJ officials. Shallah, Jibril and Nasrallah are designated Specially Designated Terrorists pursuant to Executive Order 12947. Shawkat and the officials discussed coordination and cooperation between the terrorist groups. Shawkat and Jibril hoped to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinian terrorist groups, including PFLP-GC in Lebanon, so that the groups could move between Lebanon and Syria, as well as receive weapons and ammunition more easily.

During his tenure as Deputy Director of SMI, Shawkat managed a branch of SMI charged with overseeing liaison relations with major terrorist groups resident in Damascus, including PFLP-GC, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), HAMAS, and PIJ. As SMI Deputy, Shawkat helped direct operations against Israel, some of which were coordinated with Palestinian terrorist group leaders, including PFLP-GC leader Ahmad Jibril and PIJ leader Ramadan Shallah.

Information shows that in June 2003, Shawkat, through his position as deputy director of SMI, ordered members of PIJ, Hamas, and PFLP-GC to lower their profiles. The SMI dictated a number of changes that needed to be implemented by the three terrorist groups. The SMI demanded that each of the groups seek approval from Shawkat’s liaison to hold meetings and gatherings inside their respective office spaces. The SMI also demanded that the groups lower their presence and public profile as much as possible. In return, the SMI declared that they would not expel any of the groups’ members from Syrian soil or close offices, provided their demands were met.

Information available to the United States Government indicates that in 1997, Shawkat instructed PIJ Secretary General Ramadan Shallah to surveil strategic targets in a neighboring country to prepare for possible future attacks.

By virtue of his position as SMI Director, Shawkat directs and significantly contributes to the Government of Syria’s military and security presence in Lebanon. SMI is the primary entity responsible for coordinating and implementing Syrian Arab Republic Government’s (SARG) policies in Lebanon. Shawkat has contributed significantly to the SARG’s security presence in Lebanon through his oversight of SMI activities within Lebanon and his direct control over Brigadier General Rustum Ghazali, who commanded SMI activities in Lebanon.

The United States Government designated Rustum Ghazali as a Specially Designated National pursuant to Executive Order 13338 for his role in the SARG’s continued support for terrorism and his contribution to the SARG’s security and military presence in Lebanon.

Background on Executive Order 13338

President George W. Bush signed E.O. 13338 on May 11, 2004 in response to the Syrian government’s continued support of international terrorism, sustained occupation of Lebanon, pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs and undermining of U.S. and international efforts in Iraq. Syria’s acts threaten the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States.

The Order declared a national emergency with respect to Syria, and authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to block the property of certain persons and directing other U.S. Government agencies to impose a ban on exports to Syria.

The Treasury may designate individuals and entities found to be or to have been:

— Directing or otherwise significantly contributing to the Government of Syria’s provision of safe haven to or other support for any person whose property or interests in property are blocked under United States law for terrorism-related reasons, including, but not limited to, Hamas, Hizballah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, and any persons designated pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001;

— Directing or otherwise significantly contributing to the Government of Syria’s military or security presence in Lebanon;

— Directing or otherwise significantly contributing to the Government of Syria’s pursuit of the development and production of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and medium- and long-range surface-to-surface missiles;

— Directing or otherwise significantly contributing to any steps taken by the Government of Syria to undermine United States and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq; or

— Owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

Click the following link for further information on the June 30, 2005 designation of two individuals, pursuant to E.O. 13338: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js2617.htm.

Click the following link for the full text of E.O. 13338: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040511-6.html.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
I can see the calls for impeachment being only strengthened by this move.

I don't. Impeachment has as much chance as an icecube in H#LL.

Perhaps something like THIS is one of the reasons for the new EO.

U.S. Treasury Designates Syria’s Shawkat as Terror Supporter, January 18, 2006

(Designation freezes all Shawkat’s assets under U.S. control)

The U.S. Treasury Department January 18 designated Syrian Military Intelligence Director Assef Shawkat as a supporter of terrorism for his role in Syrian interference in Lebanon and for his support of terrorist activity against Israel.

“As the Director of Syrian Military Intelligence, Shawkat has been a key architect of Syria’s domination of Lebanon, as well as a fundamental contributor to Syria’s long-standing policy to foment terrorism against Israel,” said Stuart Levey, Treasury’s under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.

The designation freezes all Shawkat’s assets under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibits U.S. entities from engaging in transactions with him.

The Treasury Department based its designation on information about the extensive ties Shawkat maintains with Lebanese and Palestinian terrorist organizations as well as his direct role in overseeing Syria’s military and security presence in neighboring Lebanon.

Following is the text of the Treasury Department’s announcement:

(begin text)

U.S. Department of the Treasury

January 18, 2006

Treasury Designates Director of Syrian Military Intelligence

The U.S. Department of the Treasury today named Assef Shawkat a Specially Designated National (SDN) of Syria pursuant to Executive Order 13338, for directly furthering the Government of Syria’s support for terrorism and interference in the sovereignty of Lebanon.

“As the Director of Syrian Military Intelligence, Shawkat has been a key architect of Syria’s domination of Lebanon, as well as a fundamental contributor to Syria’s long-standing policy to foment terrorism against Israel,” said Stuart Levey, Treasury’s Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI).

Today’s designation freezes any assets Shawkat may have located under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in transactions with him.

Identifier Information

Assef Shawkat

Title: Director of Syrian Military Intelligence

DOB: 1950

POB: Tartus, Syria

Nationality: Syria

Address: Al-Akkad Street, Damascus, Syria

Major General Assef Shawkat is the Director of Syrian Military Intelligence (SMI), the strongest and most influential security service in Syria. Its broad internal and external responsibilities include working with terrorist organizations resident in Syria and overseeing the Syrian security presence in Lebanon.

In addition to the power he derives from his position, Shawkat also has access to the highest levels of the Syrian power structure by virtue of his marriage to Bushra al-Asad, the sister to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Shawkat is a close confidant of President Assad and an important member of his inner circle of advisors.

Through his position as Director of SMI, Shawkat has directed and significantly contributed to the Government of Syria’s support for terrorism, including coordination with Specially Designated Global Terrorists Hizballah, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (”PFLP-GC”), Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (”PIJ”).

Information indicates that in 2005, Shawkat met with Hizballah Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah, PFLP-GC chief Ahmad Jibril, PIJ Secretary General Ramadan Shallah, in addition to Hamas and PIJ officials. Shallah, Jibril and Nasrallah are designated Specially Designated Terrorists pursuant to Executive Order 12947. Shawkat and the officials discussed coordination and cooperation between the terrorist groups. Shawkat and Jibril hoped to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinian terrorist groups, including PFLP-GC in Lebanon, so that the groups could move between Lebanon and Syria, as well as receive weapons and ammunition more easily.

During his tenure as Deputy Director of SMI, Shawkat managed a branch of SMI charged with overseeing liaison relations with major terrorist groups resident in Damascus, including PFLP-GC, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), HAMAS, and PIJ. As SMI Deputy, Shawkat helped direct operations against Israel, some of which were coordinated with Palestinian terrorist group leaders, including PFLP-GC leader Ahmad Jibril and PIJ leader Ramadan Shallah.

Information shows that in June 2003, Shawkat, through his position as deputy director of SMI, ordered members of PIJ, Hamas, and PFLP-GC to lower their profiles. The SMI dictated a number of changes that needed to be implemented by the three terrorist groups. The SMI demanded that each of the groups seek approval from Shawkat’s liaison to hold meetings and gatherings inside their respective office spaces. The SMI also demanded that the groups lower their presence and public profile as much as possible. In return, the SMI declared that they would not expel any of the groups’ members from Syrian soil or close offices, provided their demands were met.

Information available to the United States Government indicates that in 1997, Shawkat instructed PIJ Secretary General Ramadan Shallah to surveil strategic targets in a neighboring country to prepare for possible future attacks.

By virtue of his position as SMI Director, Shawkat directs and significantly contributes to the Government of Syria’s military and security presence in Lebanon. SMI is the primary entity responsible for coordinating and implementing Syrian Arab Republic Government’s (SARG) policies in Lebanon. Shawkat has contributed significantly to the SARG’s security presence in Lebanon through his oversight of SMI activities within Lebanon and his direct control over Brigadier General Rustum Ghazali, who commanded SMI activities in Lebanon.

The United States Government designated Rustum Ghazali as a Specially Designated National pursuant to Executive Order 13338 for his role in the SARG’s continued support for terrorism and his contribution to the SARG’s security and military presence in Lebanon.

Background on Executive Order 13338

President George W. Bush signed E.O. 13338 on May 11, 2004 in response to the Syrian government’s continued support of international terrorism, sustained occupation of Lebanon, pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs and undermining of U.S. and international efforts in Iraq. Syria’s acts threaten the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States.

The Order declared a national emergency with respect to Syria, and authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to block the property of certain persons and directing other U.S. Government agencies to impose a ban on exports to Syria.

The Treasury may designate individuals and entities found to be or to have been:

— Directing or otherwise significantly contributing to the Government of Syria’s provision of safe haven to or other support for any person whose property or interests in property are blocked under United States law for terrorism-related reasons, including, but not limited to, Hamas, Hizballah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, and any persons designated pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001;

— Directing or otherwise significantly contributing to the Government of Syria’s military or security presence in Lebanon;

— Directing or otherwise significantly contributing to the Government of Syria’s pursuit of the development and production of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and medium- and long-range surface-to-surface missiles;

— Directing or otherwise significantly contributing to any steps taken by the Government of Syria to undermine United States and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq; or

— Owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

Click the following link for further information on the June 30, 2005 designation of two individuals, pursuant to E.O. 13338: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js2617.htm.

Click the following link for the full text of E.O. 13338: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040511-6.html.

I shudder at the blatant hypocrisy of all this.

One the one hand the US sends those who have been kidnapped (that they like to call Extraordinary Rendition in order to avoid the evocativeness of the "k" word) to Syria's intelligence service so the poor souls can be relentlessly and brutally tortured for Uncle Sam, yet on the other hand Bush sanctions the head of Syrian intelligence for aiding terrorism.

If the threat and application of torture is not de facto terrorism then I don't know what is.

I wonder if anyone has considered serving George Bush and others in his Administration with an order confiscating all his assets?

Edited for below addition:

I would also add, having now read Jack's post more carefully, that I would want to see an objective legal analysis of this new EO rather than base judgement on what Russia says is the case. I remember well during the Iraq war, Russian news services providing reporting of casualties and other war reports that I believe proved unfounded.

Caution has to be key here.

David

Edited by David Guyatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

They missed out the Peoples front of Judea, and its breakaway group the Judean Peoples front, welease woderick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shudder at the blatant hypocrisy of all this.

One the one hand the US sends those who have been kidnapped (that they like to call Extraordinary Rendition in order to avoid the evocativeness of the "k" word) to Syria's intelligence service so the poor souls can be relentlessly and brutally tortured for Uncle Sam, yet on the other hand Bush sanctions the head of Syrian intelligence for aiding terrorism.

If the threat and application of torture is not de facto terrorism then I don't know what is.

I wonder if anyone has considered serving George Bush and others in his Administration with an order confiscating all his assets?

Edited for below addition:

I would also add, having now read Jack's post more carefully, that I would want to see an objective legal analysis of this new EO rather than base judgement on what Russia says is the case. I remember well during the Iraq war, Russian news services providing reporting of casualties and other war reports that I believe proved unfounded.

Caution has to be key here.

David

I don't shudder at all. We send a suspected SYRIAN terrorist back to Syria? And thats a problem? I'm fine with the renditions, fine with Gitmo, and fine with this new Executive Order. War is dark and dirty, and thats a simple fact of life. We don't always get it right, and we never will. Better to be safe than sorry. That is the price of freedom. America has lived with Executive Orders like this one since the time of Lincoln. We are none the worse for the wear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David wrote:

I would also add, having now read Jack's post more carefully, that I would want to see an objective legal analysis of this new EO rather than base judgement on what Russia says is the case. I remember well during the Iraq war, Russian news services providing reporting of casualties and other war reports that I believe proved unfounded.

Caution has to be key here.

Very similar to my sentiments, by BSometer alarm went off immediately. Just who are these unnamed Russian legal experts? If what they say is true why aren’t the Democrats, “truthers”, anti-War movement, American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, National Lawyers Guild, legal scholars and other anti-Bush groups saying anything? Why hasn’t anyone but the author picked up on this? I took some constitutional law classes in college was a long time member of the ACLU and believe Bush has done more to undermine constitutional rights than any president since Wilson but I don’t see anything in the language of the EO that supports the opinion of the supposed experts.

It turns out the article was written by “Sorcha Faal”* supposedly a Russian woman who is a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences but is probably an American man tied to the Church of Scientology.** The RAS lists all its members going back to 1724 and no one by that name is listed***. Faal isn’t a Russian name it is a Gaelic and Arabic one**. Even among the CT nutbar crowd (Rense, Barnes Review) he/she is considered to be a fraud/crackpot**.

* http://www.pscelebrities.com/whitelightblacklight/

** Do a Google search

*** http://www.ras.ru/members/personalstaff1724.aspx

He/she also wrote the following:

Russian Scientist Doctor Vladimir Shaidurov has submitted to the Russian Academy of Science a most interesting report today that states, in part, that not only has our Earth’s climate been changing due to the ever increasing number of Cosmic Blasts hitting our Planet, but more ominously that the largest ‘Shockwave’ of all in fast approaching us.

Even more intriguing about Dr. Shaidurov’s findings is that this Massive Shockwave, soon to hit us, is a remnant of the historical Star of Bethlehem that Christians believe heralded the Birth of Jesus, and which ancient accounts suggest as being a Supernova located in the Aquila Constellation of the Milky Way Galaxy.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index961.htm

And:

In 1920, in a small village outside the Leningradskaya oblast city of Boksitogorsk, began one of the most secretive experiments of not only Soviet Russia, but also of the entire world. For in the spring of that year were born what were to be called in the future as The Children of Winter.

Thirty seven children in all, of all the human races, were born, for the sole purpose to live their lives free of all sensory inputs, whether by government, social, education, religious or political influences, it made no difference, all inputs to the world they were born into, and would live throughout, were excluded from their lives.

Lenin had realized, and Stalin had understood, that only by this method of experimentation could the many issues of what human beings are, why they were born to the earth, what they hoped to achieve while here….these, and many more questions, could only be answered, could only be understood, by the growing of children free from all other human influences, and in the hope that in observing these children’s lives the final and definitive answers to all of humanities questions would be answered.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index937.htm

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
I shudder at the blatant hypocrisy of all this.

One the one hand the US sends those who have been kidnapped (that they like to call Extraordinary Rendition in order to avoid the evocativeness of the "k" word) to Syria's intelligence service so the poor souls can be relentlessly and brutally tortured for Uncle Sam, yet on the other hand Bush sanctions the head of Syrian intelligence for aiding terrorism.

If the threat and application of torture is not de facto terrorism then I don't know what is.

I wonder if anyone has considered serving George Bush and others in his Administration with an order confiscating all his assets?

Edited for below addition:

I would also add, having now read Jack's post more carefully, that I would want to see an objective legal analysis of this new EO rather than base judgement on what Russia says is the case. I remember well during the Iraq war, Russian news services providing reporting of casualties and other war reports that I believe proved unfounded.

Caution has to be key here.

David

I don't shudder at all. We send a suspected SYRIAN terrorist back to Syria? And thats a problem? I'm fine with the renditions, fine with Gitmo, and fine with this new Executive Order. War is dark and dirty, and thats a simple fact of life. We don't always get it right, and we never will. Better to be safe than sorry. That is the price of freedom. America has lived with Executive Orders like this one since the time of Lincoln. We are none the worse for the wear.

My shudder is even more prolonged after reading your post.

Civilisation has taken millennia to establish models of social behaviour in order to keep the barbarians from the door. To that end, civilisation developed the international rule of law which still says that a person has to be tried and convicted before the state can sanction an appropriate punishment. Unless, of course, you have the biggest gun in town.

As part of the protocols of civilised behaviour, torture was outlawed as inappropriate behaviour. Yes, it continued in the shadows, but illicitly. But to be proud of it, as you appear to be, well that's of an altogether different order of magnitude.

Today, the barbarians are not just at the gate, they are the smirking gatekeepers drunk on their power, obese with their sordid greed and writhing in their insatiable need to transfer their abysmal dysfunction onto others. Accordingly, and as can only be expected of the very worst sorts of criminality that has been twisted in service of the will to power, they mete out the most heinous punishments on a whim.

Be proud of your nation's achievements, Craig. I know you will. You've almost managed to turn history back sixteen hundred years in just six years. What an accomplishment! What a triumph! What critical thinking!

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shudder at the blatant hypocrisy of all this.

One the one hand the US sends those who have been kidnapped (that they like to call Extraordinary Rendition in order to avoid the evocativeness of the "k" word) to Syria's intelligence service so the poor souls can be relentlessly and brutally tortured for Uncle Sam, yet on the other hand Bush sanctions the head of Syrian intelligence for aiding terrorism.

If the threat and application of torture is not de facto terrorism then I don't know what is.

I wonder if anyone has considered serving George Bush and others in his Administration with an order confiscating all his assets?

Edited for below addition:

I would also add, having now read Jack's post more carefully, that I would want to see an objective legal analysis of this new EO rather than base judgement on what Russia says is the case. I remember well during the Iraq war, Russian news services providing reporting of casualties and other war reports that I believe proved unfounded.

Caution has to be key here.

David

I don't shudder at all. We send a suspected SYRIAN terrorist back to Syria? And thats a problem? I'm fine with the renditions, fine with Gitmo, and fine with this new Executive Order. War is dark and dirty, and thats a simple fact of life. We don't always get it right, and we never will. Better to be safe than sorry. That is the price of freedom. America has lived with Executive Orders like this one since the time of Lincoln. We are none the worse for the wear.

My shudder is even more prolonged after reading your post.

Civilisation has taken millennia to establish models of social behaviour in order to keep the barbarians from the door. To that end, civilisation developed the international rule of law which still says that a person has to be tried and convicted before the state can sanction an appropriate punishment. Unless, of course, you have the biggest gun in town.

As part of the protocols of civilised behaviour, torture was outlawed as inappropriate behaviour. Yes, it continued in the shadows, but illicitly. But to be proud of it, as you appear to be, well that's of an altogether different order of magnitude.

Today, the barbarians are not just at the gate, they are the smirking gatekeepers drunk on their power, obese with their sordid greed and writhing in their insatiable need to transfer their abysmal dysfunction onto others. Accordingly, and as can only be expected of the very worst sorts of criminality that has been twisted in service of the will to power, they mete out the most heinous punishments on a whim.

Be proud of your nation's achievements, Craig. I know you will. You've almost managed to turn history back sixteen hundred years in just six years. What an accomplishment! What a triumph! What critical thinking!

David

Ah David I see your problem, you actually BELIEVE there is such a thing as 'International Law". Sorry to inform you but your belief is misplaced. "International Law" is pure illusion. Regardless of your faith in illusion, it has ALWAYS been the rule of the biggest gun. All attempts to show that your " protocols of civilised behaviour" were the pathway to a more blissful world have been a miserable failure. You must be very proud that your chosen course is a complete failure. I'm sure that also delights radical Islam.

It's fortunate that the world has the "ugly Americans" to do the dirty work. One can only imagine the world with only the " protocols of civilised behaviour" guarding the door. Can you say prayer rug? Critical thinking tells me that the survival of the western world as we know it REQUIRES that the BIGGEST GUN is the only answer. And that David will be the path to triumph.

Shudder until the cows come home, thats exactly what is expected from the timid and the weak.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
I shudder at the blatant hypocrisy of all this.

One the one hand the US sends those who have been kidnapped (that they like to call Extraordinary Rendition in order to avoid the evocativeness of the "k" word) to Syria's intelligence service so the poor souls can be relentlessly and brutally tortured for Uncle Sam, yet on the other hand Bush sanctions the head of Syrian intelligence for aiding terrorism.

If the threat and application of torture is not de facto terrorism then I don't know what is.

I wonder if anyone has considered serving George Bush and others in his Administration with an order confiscating all his assets?

Edited for below addition:

I would also add, having now read Jack's post more carefully, that I would want to see an objective legal analysis of this new EO rather than base judgement on what Russia says is the case. I remember well during the Iraq war, Russian news services providing reporting of casualties and other war reports that I believe proved unfounded.

Caution has to be key here.

David

I don't shudder at all. We send a suspected SYRIAN terrorist back to Syria? And thats a problem? I'm fine with the renditions, fine with Gitmo, and fine with this new Executive Order. War is dark and dirty, and thats a simple fact of life. We don't always get it right, and we never will. Better to be safe than sorry. That is the price of freedom. America has lived with Executive Orders like this one since the time of Lincoln. We are none the worse for the wear.

My shudder is even more prolonged after reading your post.

Civilisation has taken millennia to establish models of social behaviour in order to keep the barbarians from the door. To that end, civilisation developed the international rule of law which still says that a person has to be tried and convicted before the state can sanction an appropriate punishment. Unless, of course, you have the biggest gun in town.

As part of the protocols of civilised behaviour, torture was outlawed as inappropriate behaviour. Yes, it continued in the shadows, but illicitly. But to be proud of it, as you appear to be, well that's of an altogether different order of magnitude.

Today, the barbarians are not just at the gate, they are the smirking gatekeepers drunk on their power, obese with their sordid greed and writhing in their insatiable need to transfer their abysmal dysfunction onto others. Accordingly, and as can only be expected of the very worst sorts of criminality that has been twisted in service of the will to power, they mete out the most heinous punishments on a whim.

Be proud of your nation's achievements, Craig. I know you will. You've almost managed to turn history back sixteen hundred years in just six years. What an accomplishment! What a triumph! What critical thinking!

David

Ah David I see your problem, you actually BELIEVE there is such a thing as 'International Law". Sorry to inform you but your belief is misplaced. "International Law" is pure illusion. Regardless of your faith in illusion, it has ALWAYS been the rule of the biggest gun. All attempts to show that your " protocols of civilised behaviour" were the pathway to a more blissful world have been a miserable failure. You must be very proud that your chosen course is a complete failure. I'm sure that also delights radical Islam.

It's fortunate that the world has the "ugly Americans" to do the dirty work. One can only imagine the world with only the " protocols of civilised behaviour" guarding the door. Can you say prayer rug? Critical thinking tells me that the survival of the western world as we know it REQUIRES that the BIGGEST GUN is the only answer. And that David will be the path to triumph.

Shudder until the cows come home, thats exactly what is expected from the timid and the weak.

Craig,

I had a feeling you'd want to tango. You chose to be provocative for a reason, eh...

Anyway, in answer to yours:

It's not so much that I believe in international law per se, but I do believe in it as an admirable concept to aim for. Strangely so did America once, at least until the latest incumbent of the White House drawded out his big gunanator and started burning out rounds for his masters profit -- and to satisfy his own will to power. That, btw, is psychological-speak for those with a particularly nasty psychosis.

I also do not believe in domestic law as a perfect solution, obviously it's not. It is very corrupt and extremely politicised. But if a drugged out 6'6" muscle-bursting guy toting a Mac10 was kicking down your door, I don't suppose your head to your shelf and grab your tomb on the philosophy of critical thinking to repel him. What I think you'd do is call 911 and yelp. Long and hard. Yes, the policemen who came to rescue you from the clutches of death would also be toting guns but, usually, (we hope) they'd be clutching them on your behalf.

It called civilisation, Craig, and can be found between the letter "b" and "d" in the Oxford Dictionary -- where "b" is for "baby" and "bath-water" and "d" is for "dead".

Rome had the biggest GUN once upon a time -- and a Nero. Now you've got the Nero and the big gun. But this is not the solution that you say it is. It's just the dawning of a new misery to which a solution must ultimately be found.

Meanwhile, your belief in Uncle Sam's being right through might is naively misplaced. The entiire Iraq matter is not about radical Islam as you appear to think (I used the word "think" purposely, rather than "feel" or "believe" and I imagine you understand the reasons for that choice quite clearly).

What we're discussing is not a game of intellectual dick measuring.

It's about this:

iraq_mcdonalds.jpg

And about this, too:

180px-Grossdeutschland.jpg

And by the time you and others have woken up to it, I fear it will be about this also (a logical progression):

250px-Buchenwald-J-Rouard-10.jpg

But by then you're very likely to be one of those bodies.

If you're not, it's probably because you'll be one of the guys wearing the rune flash insignia and toting a neck pistol.

I hope I'm wrong. Don't you?

David

Edited by David Guyatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah David I see your problem, you actually BELIEVE there is such a thing as 'International Law". Sorry to inform you but your belief is misplaced. "International Law" is pure illusion.

Funny that you say that because the "Baby Doc" administration tried using international law to justify invading Iraq (They were in violation of Security Council resolutions)

Regardless of your faith in illusion, it has ALWAYS been the rule of the biggest gun. All attempts to show that your " protocols of civilised behaviour" were the pathway to a more blissful world have been a miserable failure. You must be very proud that your chosen course is a complete failure. I'm sure that also delights radical Islam.

It's fortunate that the world has the "ugly Americans" to do the dirty work. One can only imagine the world with only the " protocols of civilised behaviour" guarding the door. Can you say prayer rug? Critical thinking tells me that the survival of the western world as we know it REQUIRES that the BIGGEST GUN is the only answer. And that David will be the path to triumph.

I don’t know if “might makes right” is the answer by most accounts the invasion of Iraq has left “radical Islam” a lot stronger than before. The US has a lot bigger guns than Brazil, Sweden, the Netherlands, Costa Rica, South Africa, Japan etc yet with minor exception those and many other small gunned countries have free (or almost free) of terrorist attacks. The UK and Spain only became targets due to their support of the invasion. How many Afgans and Iraqis joined the “resistance” after having friend or loved ones killed/maimed/raped/tortured by “coalition forces”? Why do a majority of Iraqis of all ethnicities say they want the US out and that they were better off under Saddam? Might Israel suffer less if it treated the Arabs in and around it better? Perhaps part of the problem is that the US and its allies are too quick to use their ‘big guns’.

Shudder until the cows come home, thats exactly what is expected from the timid and the weak.

Eagerness to send others to war or be tortured don't equal courage and reluctance to do doesn't equal cowardice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...