Bush outlaws war protests

[Paul Rigby]

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.

Hats off to Mr. C for an excellent post.

[Peter McKenna]

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

( 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."

The way I read this (executive order?), it basically states that it will be illegal to provide material or financial aid to persons or groups attempting to destabilize the US position in Iraq (or Iraq's US sanctioned Government).

The wording appears sufficiently vague that a self serving interpretation, on the part of the Justice Dept., et al, by applying a definition, in the broadest sense, of the term "aid" may be contrued subjectively to include verbal protestation of the 'War' in Iraq. If so, that would be a violation of our first amendment right of free speech, and possibly of lawful assembly.

Currently the Supreme Court includes a majority of Republican appointed judges. Even so any action by the Justice dept. to abrogate our civil rights would, I'm sure, be struck down at some point. Provided, and this would be an important proviso, that we don't find ourselves in a situation similar to the Joe McCarthy Communist witchhunts of the 1950s.

I read of a government employee, a woman in a clerical position, maybe in Florida, who was fired and arrested, when she emailed a coworker, criticising the Bush administration's handling of Iraq. She was arrested for sedition. I can't remember the details exactly, but it was maybe two or three years ago. This type of behavior by our Government is frightening.

If this Executive Order is used to bolster that type of behavior by the Justice dept., et al, then we maybe in for an extremely bad turn.

Do you have any examples where this order was employed, in a manner which you would deem unconstitutional, or threatening to our civil rights?

[Peter McKenna]

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

( 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."

From 1798:

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/america...d_sedition_acts

"Passed in preparation for an anticipated war with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts tightened restrictions on foreign-born Americans and limited speech critical of the Government."

[Peter McKenna]

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

( 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."

From 1798:

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/america...d_sedition_acts

"Passed in preparation for an anticipated war with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts tightened restrictions on foreign-born Americans and limited speech critical of the Government."

Um, my mistake, it was a Veteran Administration Nurse, 'Investigated for Sedition' who wrote an Albequrque Paper;

Nurse Investigated for 'Sedition' After Writing Letter to Editor By E&P StaffPublished: February 11, 2006,

http://the-morrighan.blogspot.com/2006_02_12_archive.html

Sorry, but with a little searching I believe there will be many similar situations found...

[Mark Stapleton]

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.

Hats off to Mr. C for an excellent post.

Here here. Good post Len.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

What is admirable about a concept that is meaningless? “International Law” is a parlor game played by every country on the planet. When “International Law" serves a countries best interests they embrace it. When “International Law” does not serve a countries best interest they discard it. America, along with every other country on the planet, have been playing this silly parlor game long before GWB, and in all likelihood will continue long after he is no longer in office. And thank you so much for your critical analysis of the current President of the United States. Please excuse me for not offering my analysis of your mental state. I’m afraid it would carry just about as much weight as yours, which I think we could weigh in grams.

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.

Unlike you I still have the ability to arm myself and to use said weapons to defend my family and property. Should this drugged out thug attempt to kick in my door, chances are the police, when they finally arrive, would find this thug dead on the floor. Perhaps you could arm yourself with a butter knife, that is as long as that is until that is banned for everyone but the bad guys. This is an interesting comparison, and the irony is not lost on me. It mirrors very closely the differences between your brand of civilization and mine. In yours doing the right thing is to avoid confrontation and to wait for someone…anyone to provide you safety. In mine it,s taking care of ones self and doing what is required to survive. Of course mine simply would not do in your "proper society".

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".

See above. And please note that "dead" would most likely apply to your brand of civilization.

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.

Sorry but it’s the ONLY solution when you are dealing with people like radical Islam. Well maybe you could start a dialog, negotiate, sign a few papers, and perhaps sleep easy because you will have achieved "Peace in our time" And maybe you will end up beheaded while you sleep. That’s the civilization that the people who want to kill us live in.

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).

Now who is being naïve now David? What I KNOW has noting to do with my good old Unk. The facts about who we are fighting, how they fight and their ultimate goals are incontestable. The effectiveness of the various methods on how to deal with this threat are very well known. I don’t need to BELIEVE anything.

As for Iraq, your attempt to divine my thoughts has gone astray. Iraq is but a SMALL stepping stone in the war against Radical Islam. A simple piece of the puzzle. The worry is however that weak and timid people may soon gain control and toss away the gains in a misguided attempt to be "civilized" What that will do is just get us dead.

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

On that point I agree.

Its about life and death,

Its about the freedom to worship or not as you please,

It’s about keeping the 14th century from ruling the earth once again.

And by the way, you don’t have to hope about being wrong…you are already.

Edited July 21, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

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)

Thanks so much for making my point Len. International Law did not serve the best interests of the United States and it was simply dismissed. But really how could we be in violation of a law that was not valid? For a law to have any validity it must be enforced and punishment administered. Clearly that did not happen. Such is the illusion that International Law exists.

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’.

Don’t worry Len, should radical Islam have the success they dream, they will get around to you . Of course it is quite possible that they will simply take over from within, much like they are doing in many parts of he world, old Europe included. After they get control, do you really think you have any chance of livng in peace WITHOUT a conversion to Islam

How many indeed? I wait your detailed answer. And while you are compiling those numbers please include those who joined the effort to oust the Taliban, AQ and Saddam after having loved ones killed/maimed/raped/tortured by these fine civilized groups.

When they took that poll that says it was “safer” under Saddam, do you think they interviewed all of the people found in the many mass graves in Iraq? I think their answers just might have skewed the results….

“Might Israel…”

You’re kidding ..right?

In the case of Iraq, the US waited TEN LONG YEARS, what more do you want?

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

I can’t speak for others but the last thing I want is war, and since I have friends and family in Iraq, I have no eagerness. This is NOT about courage nor cowardice. Its about right and wrong and about strength and weakness.

Sticking ones head in the sand and hoping that things will improve is wrong and it’s weak. Words, paper, and law enforcement will never solve this problem. It will only lead to defeat.

Is that the result you seek?

[John Simkin]

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.

Your reasoning suggests that you actually believe that the reason why Bush and Blair invaded Iraq was to destroy Muslim fundamentalism. In fact, Saddam Hussein was doing a good job suppressing them (and the communists and socialists for that matter). This war is about the Military Industrial Complex. The only ones who have gained from this war are those who have shares in the companies that hold government contracts like Halliburton (according to a former confession on the forum, I believe you fall into that category Craig).

Even if it was a war against Muslim fundamentalism, it has clearly failed. This is what the foreign policy experts at the time warned what would happen. Craig, what do you make of this article?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10526

[Guest David Guyatt]

Quote:

The facts about who we are fighting, how they fight and their ultimate goals are incontestable. The effectiveness of the various methods on how to deal with this threat are very well known.

Unquote

Oh dear, looks like it's Klan bake time all over again?

Behold a Holy warrior!

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Your reasoning suggests that you actually believe that the reason why Bush and Blair invaded Iraq was to destroy Muslim fundamentalism. In fact, Saddam Hussein was doing a good job suppressing them (and the communists and socialists for that matter). This war is about the Military Industrial Complex. The only ones who have gained from this war are those who have shares in the companies that hold government contracts like Halliburton (according to a former confession on the forum, I believe you fall into that category Craig).

Even if it was a war against Muslim fundamentalism, it has clearly failed. This is what the foreign policy experts at the time warned what would happen. Craig, what do you make of this article?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10526

It appears your ability to understand the written word is being colored by your worldview. I was very clear the war in Iraq is but one SMALL part of the war on radical Islam. Actually Iraq has more to do with Iran than anything else.

Ah yes that old fallback of the left...the Military Industrail Complex. You need a new game John because tthis one is a bit rusty. And while yes I have gained as the value of by stocks have grown (along with others that are not defence related), there are those in Iraq who have also gain...like the entire population that no longer lives under the thumb of a brutal dictator and his two mutant sons who quite enjoyed filling mass graves and tossing people into plastic shredders. They still have quite a long way to go as they struggle to find their footing. Given that you claim to be a historian, Im sure you can understand that the birth of a nation takes time and struggle.

Are we to assume you think Iraq was a BETTER place for it's citizens with Saddam in place?

Exactly how is the war against radical Islam failed? Its not even over yet? Radical Islam started their attack way back in the early 90's. We just really started fighting back in 2001. We have made quite good progess in a short period of time. And from my perspective, as an American citizen, that progress menas no attacks on our soil. Of course the game is far from over, unless the defeatists, like you have their way. And Timothy Garton Ash as well.

You think its bad now, just wait until your vision comes to pass.

[Craig Lamson]

Quote:

The facts about who we are fighting, how they fight and their ultimate goals are incontestable. The effectiveness of the various methods on how to deal with this threat are very well known.

Unquote

Oh dear, looks like it's Klan bake time all over again?

Behold a Holy warrior!

Just to detail your position David....

[Guest David Guyatt]

Getting close, eh, Craig.

Who's the "we" you let slip? Not "Uncle" because you don't have much respect for that association judged by earlier posts.

Let's see...Opus Dei maybe? Something religiously radical, I think.

Do tell, I know you're proud of it...can't wait to get go killing them thar Muslims. But also shy and hidey about it. Why is that?

Good old Anglo Saxon name is Lamson, originally hailing from England but skipped over the Atlantic because of, so far as I can gather, religious persecution.

To save you the trouble, mine is Hugenot -- chased out of France by nassy wicked Popes a hunting Calvenists. But not much religious flavour in my branch of the family these days.

Btw, what's your sidearm of choice?

David

[Craig Lamson]

Getting close, eh, Craig.

Yes it does appear we are getting quite close , close to seeing your decided lack of ability to judge human beings. I sure hope you were better at being an investment banker than you are a being a woo woo.

Who's the "we" you let slip? Not "Uncle" because you don't have much respect for that association judged by earlier posts.

There you go again, seeing things that are just not there, a common trait I might add for the CT crowd.

Like most Americans I have a healthy distrust of government, and at the same time great respect. I’m proud to be an American. Does our Representative Republic always live up to all of my personal expectations,? Of course not. Would I prefer to live anywhere else? Not a chance. And in case you missed it, the ‘we” is the USA.

Let's see...Opus Dei maybe? Something religiously radical, I think.

Do tell, I know you're proud of it...can't wait to get go killing them thar Muslims. But also shy and hidey about it. Why is that?

Well unless you count being a sporadically practicing member of the Church of God radical, you are wrong again. Do you EVER get anything right? As for killing ANYONE, it’s not something I relish nor desire. I will however be the first to stand up and defend myself.

Good old Anglo Saxon name is Lamson, originally hailing from England but skipped over the Atlantic because of, so far as I can gather, religious persecution.

To save you the trouble, mine is Hugenot -- chased out of France by nassy wicked Popes a hunting Calvenists. But not much religious flavour in my branch of the family these days.

My understanding of my family tree finds my ancestors coming to America from Germany. And this matters why?

Btw, what's your sidearm of choice?

Btw, what’s your butter knife of choice?

[Len Colby]

And while yes I have gained as the value of by stocks have grown (along with others that are not defence related), there are those in Iraq who have also gain...like the entire population that no longer lives under the thumb of a brutal dictator and his two mutant sons who quite enjoyed filling mass graves and tossing people into plastic shredders. They still have quite a long way to go as they struggle to find their footing. Given that you claim to be a historian, Im sure you can understand that the birth of a nation takes time and struggle.

Are we to assume you think Iraq was a BETTER place for it's citizens with Saddam in place?

From the comfort of your home and office etc in the US you think the Iraqis are better off but they think otherwise, polls have shown that all things considered they think they were better off under Saddam. Yes a brutal dictator is gone but he has been replaced by increased chaos, crime and violence and a breakdown of the economy and basic services. Will things eventually stabilize? I hope so but am far from optimistic. Will stabilization take longer or come quicker if we pull out? That's a difficult question to answer but much of the violence is caused by a) coalition forces and those trying to make them leave.

EDIT – spelling / typos / emoticons

Edited July 21, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Don’t worry Len, should radical Islam have the success they dream, they will get around to you . Of course it is quite possible that they will simply take over from within, much like they are doing in many parts of he world, old Europe included. After they get control, do you really think you have any chance of livng in peace WITHOUT a conversion to Islam

You assume the primary motivation of Al-Queda is to convert the entire world to their brand of Islam this is the boogyman used by Coulter, Limbaugh, Rove etc and their ilk. The main reason for their attacks seems to be they don’t like the foreign policy of the countries they attack. The chance of them taking over countries with small numbers of Muslims and an even smaller number of “radical ones” are miniscule at best they have only had success in a small number of predominantly Islamic countries though they might take over one more [courtesy of GWB and his “Toto” Tony (the) Blair (Witch Project)]. As John pointed out there was not much "radical Islam" in Iraq under Saddam.

How many indeed? I wait your detailed answer.

Impossible to calculate but let’s say you were an apolitical guy living in one of those countries and the US fired a missile into your house (which was meant for one of your neighbors) killing your entire family might not there be a good chance you’d join up with those targeting the US?

And while you are compiling those numbers please include those who joined the effort to oust the Taliban, AQ and Saddam after having loved ones killed/maimed/raped/tortured by these fine civilized groups.

My point exactly, people who have been victimized by a group are likely to oppose it. You’ll get no argument from me about Afghanistan though. One of the big problems there is that the US pulled away resources to send to Iraq.

When they took that poll that says it was “safer” under Saddam, do you think they interviewed all of the people found in the many mass graves in Iraq? I think their answers just might have skewed the results….

Obviously not but they presumably interviewed their surviving relatives, by the same token they didn’t interview the hundreds of thousands of civilians who died as a result of the invasion but probably questioned their relatives. They didn’t just say they were safer but that they were better off.

“Might Israel…”

You’re kidding ..right?

Not in the least, though I defend that country’s “right to exist” I don’t think it has a right to do as it pleases. Note that I didn’t attribute all attacks on Israel to its actions. A homemade rocket that does minor property damage or on rare occasion kills or injures someone doesn’t justify a retaliatory attack that kills several people that had nothing to do with it. As above imagine you were an apolitical Palestinian and your loved ones were killed in a “retaliatory attack”, might that make you want to join Hamas, give them “aid and comfort” or at least vote for them in the next election?

In the case of Iraq, the US waited TEN LONG YEARS, what more do you want?

More of the same would have been better that the current catastrophy

EDIT - Double post replaced with a different one

Edited July 21, 2007 by Len Colby