[extropy-chat] Krugman on the state of play

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 14:52:49 -0500, Kevin Freels
> <megaquark at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > By the way. Why is it that people think that
> "torture" and "abuse" are the same thing? 
> 
> Granted there is a whole range of bad things that a
> jailer or interrogator can do to a "detainee".  And
> you could reasonably set up a scale of badness, with
> "abuse" lower on the scale than "torture".  But I
> don't think this is really what motivates your
> comment.  You just want some way to weasel out from
> under the implications of the acts performed at abu
> Ghraib.  We do cherish and strain against any
> besmirchment of our self-image as God-blessed
> Americans, now don't we? 
> 
> > Torture is what Saddam did.
> 
> Yup.  That's exactly how it's defined.  When "they" do
> it, it's torture, when "we" do it, it's,... hi jinx,
> unintentional, unfortunate.  They, BY DEFINITION, are
> the bad guys.  

I had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the NH Civil Liberties
Union (can you imagine me there????) yesterday afternoon, where a talk
was given by a registered Republican, who is now Dean of the Franklin
Pierce Law School in Concord, NH, and was previously the CINCJAG of the
Navy, Admiral John Hudson (Ret). Hudson was commenting on the situation
with prisoners at gitmo and Iraq. 

While he confirmed a lot of what I've previously posted to this list,
he did clarify with actual White House memos by WH counsel Gonzales to
Pres. Bush that the White House had actively sought a legal argument to
specifically refuse to recognise that any prisoners met the criteria
found in the Geneva Conventions, because they were not individuals in
the service of any recognised government (even the Taliban were
referred to as a 'failed state' due to its lack of diplomatic
recognition around the world). Because of this legal determination by
the White House, the 'competent tribunal' requirement of the
Conventions needed to determine if an individual prisoner is a legal or
illegal combatant (or noncombatant) was never triggered.

Hudson referred to this argument as being "too clever for one's own
good", which I have some sympathy for, especially on the same logical
reasons that Hudson rejects it for: that not taking the high road of
treating all prisoners as POWs until determined otherwise by competent
tribunal endangers American lives, since it is our military forces who
are forward deployed in other countries more than anyone.

Of course one can point to instances where US military personnel had
been badly abused prior to the Bush administration: Mogadishu, for
instance, demonstrated that the enemy already had zero respect for the
laws of war before the Bush administration started deciding that
terrorist prisoners had no rights to Geneva protections. Whether the
Bush administration decided to adopt this policy following the clear
examples of Mogadishu and others is something else entirely to debate.

One is left in the position of really trying hard to argue for the
'turn the other cheek' argument when one is faced by this example,
especially following the visceral destruction of 9/11. It was easier in
yesteryear when images of badly abused bodies of military personnel
dragged through the streets didn't automatically show up on websites
and television broadcasts. The sensationalism of the instant press
contributes to the baying for blood (on both sides), rather than to any
reasoned or rational debate, or chance for sober minds to try to
constrain policy before the mob demands vengance.

As list subscribers in the late 1990's may remember, I have spoken on
several occasions about how groups seek to apply revolutionary theory
to  get a free society to willingly surrender its rights through
vicious cycles of oppression, atrocity, and more oppression, etc. Some
of those here who disagee with me on things these days didn't believe
me when I warned of exactly what they are now complaining about.

Giving up our liberties is what the islamist world wishes to achieve in
the west. Rather than Patriot Acts, the best Homeland Security would be
to rescind the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, the FOPA of 1986 and the
Brady Bill. Admiral Hirohito warned Tojo against invading the mainland
US. He had studied at university here, and had a pretty good idea about
mainland society. He said that an invasion would fail because, "there
is a rifle behind every blade of grass". There was no rifle (or other
arm) behind every blade of grass (or airline seat) on 9/11. The
hijacking phenomenon began when the FAA banned citizens from their 2nd
amendment rights on aircraft, and it will cease when that ban is
lifted. Terrorism will fail to succeed when the populaces is once again
broadly armed, when it is the rare individual who is morally scrupulous
against use of arms who is unarmed on the streets.

Rather than a police society, we need to trust ourselves and our
Constitution, and fight the enemy by making ourselves more free once again.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com