It is actually a political document. It has been the supreme court that turned it into law – to make your points, you have to look at the SC’s rulings

My original quip is about the ability to discuss the situation. There is little ground between the sides, thus one is unable to make any forward headway, end around, or out flank the opposition.

I give you an example of a battle not to fight.

I was trespassing on a piece of property to capture an image. I knew the owner, but he wasn’t home. His neighbor comes out and starts yelling at me – I told him who I am and told him things about his neighbor that he probably didn’t know. 100% of the time people here get the fact that I am who I say I am and I am not in a process of harm, but good.

This guy couldn’t let go – I realized immediately that he was unbalanced and I told him to call the cops. He said he couldn’t call, I ask why, and he says because it isn’t his property.

I went about my business – later the police called me.

I told the officer I have been trespassing here on the island for 17 years and I have never had a problem. The officer said that they are aware of my work and that they are watching the other guy closely. He asked me not to go back.

There are laws & there is reasonableness,

“Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.”.

We’ll save Australia;
Don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo.
We’ll build an all-American amusement park there;
They’ve got surfing, too.

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/randy-newman/political-science.html

Ok I’ll read, but don’t make the mistake Gonzales made – look at the amendments too.

The tution is extremely vague to be a contract, in fact it does not have many of the elements required of a binding contract.

http://www.e-law.bc.ca/art_essential.html

they have legal rights under our constitution to be treated humanely..it may be that “convention” has come to accept a different interpretation. i invite you to read the constitution again..unbeleivably short document for what it is or refer to my sites over there.@ katrina

march 16 12:30

the founders were careful with their words..what may appear ambiguous can not have been carelessness or an oversightand..the early stirrings of manifest destiny was certainly in their hearts. contracts are always careful to define terms very specifically, good ones anyway (why people with trial experience tend to write the best ones) ..this document is no exeption…often CLEARLY stretching to include foreigners on american soil (necessary for commerce)

I’m not on that thread b/c the answer is too simple & too emotionally charged

The ‘law people’ are correct.

The answer is that the law needs to be changed.

The rationale is that we need these people – they aren’t here for a free lunch – We the People of the United States are getting a free lunch off their plate.

GL

over there i wrote because i feel strongly about this..

“our integrity..amongst ourselves and internationaly, depends upon how determined we are to maintain human rights, as defined by our own constitution, among all people placed in our hands..regardless of the circumstance.”

this is not some game’s rules printed on the back of the box..but a code of behavior and governmental architecture. people are inspired by it..outside this country..they are more than a little disapointed when they take a harder look at us.

btw my cousin was teaching school in jordan during the iraq invasion..the daughter of a combat veteran..she had to pretend to be canadian

In other words, back to the old laws “might makes Right”; and “an eye for an eye”?

Re: (ibid) “Therefore, when the enemy (as an example to contrast we can say the “old style enemy” like the Soviet Union during the Cold War) does not go by any known rules or laws, by flying planes into buildings, and while doing so creates a mostly new kind of battlefield, then the victim will fall prey to the aggressor unless he adapts to the new situation..”-

OK… even though 1. the Laws of Physics still apply; and 2. there have been suicide attacks using planes as far back as the 1940s (& earlier, if one considers Waldo Pepper’s attack on the haybarn… of course, that was during “barnstorming” days… and may have been seen as “within the rules” of the endeavors, in those times), let’s assume “We, the People”, stick by our guns, er, principles, and take our lumps, playing “By the Rules.” Let’s suppose that those who attacked on 9/11/01 continued, unabated, with this “new method of lawless warfare”- and we did… nothing. If they had the same level of success as we continued to provide them with extraordinary targets, and the planes full of people & fuel, EVERY DAY SINCE 9/11, the casualty figure would stand at around 6 million- about half the population of Greater NYC. (By contrast, the “old-style enemy” you mentioned, ie the Soviet Union, lost 20 million in their victorious struggle with Nazi Germany, in a slightly shorter time frame.)

Re: (ibid) ..”We are still a nation of laws and I don’t see any reason why that will ever change. But when it comes to the terrorists, “law” has very little value. The formulation is simple: if no American adaptation to “lawless” and unconventional attack of 911, then no survival..”

Does “adaptation” mean “giving up on our principles”? If so, then “hello, fascism; so long, USA”. The adaptation to “lawless” has been around for centuries: it is called “Law”- & it works. Adaptation to “unconventional attack” is around, too… it’s called “the Pentagon”- and it has Your Best Interests at heart- if you have the money…

Re: (ibid) ..” Propaganda is a shield from reality – or, say, a commercial manifestation that projects or protects the desired image of a given culture..”-

I agree… and a corporate-dominated media has a lot to project- and a lot to protect…

Re: ..”One can choose to be protected by it, or not. The only difference is that we have that choice, while others don’t..”-
Yes- we still have a choice- & the opportunity- to see other points of view, here, different from the ones promulgated by “traditional” media, despite efforts to discourage ‘looking elsewhere’ (eg the movement for the “cultural purity” of an “english-only” society, the eternal sneers directed at “foreign” news sources, the wave of dismissal of the blogosphere). As an American, though, one has little choice about being “protected” by propaganda… it’s out there… & if you’re out there, too- but don’t feel served by it- tough. Pretend you’re a Canadian, if you don’t wanna take the heat for the policies of your country… ^..^

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6460053.stm

Ex-CIA agent blasts White House. Former CIA covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson
Valerie Plame said her identity was ‘recklessly abused’.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6460227.stm

Try google-ing that in China…lol

as far as militarization is concerned, we maintain a massive military as i have mentioned here before. this predates the bush administration..president eisenhower (republican and military) warned of its influence in a speech to the nation long ago when threats of a MILITARY nature were ramping up in strategic nukes. gwb has ramped up the overall military budget to @ half a trillion dollars, this is unprecedented..you must admit that this a heady brew..addictive..with few people in the military industrial complex coming out and saying that the threats to this country are best countered by non-military means..if at all.

and you’re right china’s government sucks

btw george bush doesn’t need any help on the demonizing thing..he is obviously incompetant..especially to the fair and balanced among us

islamic terrorists want us out of there and they want to take the credit for it. let us be the mature ones here and do just that..while keeping the diplomatic pressure up on the region. spend some of that half trillion on schools and health care and alternative sources of energy…get out from under that oil monkey

perspective: us oil consumption (20.73 million bbl/day-2004 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.html

global oil consumption – 80.1 million bbl/day (2003 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/xx.html

us population @ 298,444,215

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.htmlwith

global population @ 6,525,170,264 (July 2006 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/xx.html

that’s @ 4.5% of the world’s population burning 25% of its oil. why oh why are we so misunderstood?…we mean well…why oh why do we need such a big military? nobody understands us!

average price of gasoline in canada 102.6 cents a litre..home of one of the world’s largest oil reserves (tar sands) @ 180 billion bbls barrels, second only to saudi arabia’s 264 billion bbls.

http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=oilandgas.gasreport

http://www.rense.com/general37/petrol.htm

in us dollars thats 87.30206 cents a liter or @ $3.30 a gallon

average price of gasoline in usa..$2.38

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html

my sources fair and balanced enough? maybe my math is wrong..definitely possible.

how do you account for this disparity? canada’s next door…imo we are behaving like armed addicts with our gluttenous consumer habits and the bills are coming due.

Cooptation of the media Thats a good one Almost every major news outlet has gone out of their way to demonize Bush and the war. Many media outlets have turned from bias to outright lies in their effort to attack Bush and the war.

The justice system has been crippled for decades,yet it is still 100% better than Chinas,as you well know.

Militarization of society. Please explain this. Most of the nations population does not serve in the military and never will. We have an all volunteer force. The constitution demands we have an army to protect our nation. How much we spend is up to the congress and senate. Bush can ask for whatever he wants but it is the house and senate that ultimately decides.

I love these type of posts. Such convoluted logic never ceases to amaze me.

my propaganda radar is working just fine thank you.

I would love to agree with that, but I can’t. Why not? Because on September Eleventh two-thousand and one all the laws we know – especially those that apply to the Geneva Convention, etc – were circumvented in one fell swoop by a few suicidal Muslims. It is obvious to me that the 911 attack was so far out of the box, that the response to it also needed to be just as shocking, to equalize the severity of the act. Therefore, when the enemy (as an example to contrast we can say the “old style enemy” like the Soviet Union during the Cold War) does not go by any known rules or laws, by flying planes into buildings, and while doing so creates a mostly new kind of battlefield, then the victim will fall prey to the aggressor unless he adapts to the new situation.

President Bush has become the embodiment of evil to those who chastise him because they have not realized this sudden necessity to adapt. The fact that so many ‘still’ don’t realize it means, actually, that they were successful – or, as “successful” as possible in protecting us. This need to adapt is much bigger than George Bush or any one of us. We are still a nation of laws and I don’t see any reason why that will ever change. But when it comes to the terrorists, “law” has very little value. The formulation is simple: if no American adaptation to “lawless” and unconventional attack of 911, then no survival.

I think it is the responsibility of those who in their spare time concern themselves with such matters make an effort to see through the propaganda. If one does not understand why this is so it will cause all kinds of headaches. Propaganda is a shield from reality – or, say, a commercial manifestation that projects or protects the desired image of a given culture. One can choose to be protected by it, or not. The only difference is that we have that choice, while others don’t.

The more I think about it, the more the American state is taking on the accoutrements of the communist Chinese regime under Mao. The degree of state control, the muzzling of dissent, the cooptation of the media, the crippled justice system, the militarization of society… perhaps we are in the early stages. Ironic, as China embraces some forms of capitalism. But those who expect democratic freedoms to flourish are likely to be disappointed.

Food for thought. Superb show March 14th. Keep it up!

Sinologist

The crime was “Going to War”. ^..^

PS- Brendan, was my post of 2/27(@3:57PM) any influence on this story?.. or did we both come here, informed by different sources? Anyway, I was most happy to see/hear it here, at all… thanks. ^..^

Michael Scheuer (x CIA and head of the unit that went after Bin Laden) and the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, was on FoxNews/Bill O’reilly tonight and he said “Most of the country doesn’t understand the danger it faces”. Echoing Scheuer, the BIAS I speak of is an intellectual dishonesty; rebellion for the sake of rebellion and uneducated abuse of freedom. I resent those who spit in the face of liberal democracy and the rule of law – and I resent the indiscretion of those who indulge in Historical revisionism. But I do not resent those who truly do not understand what goes on in the Middle East and why America does what it does militarily. I will not attempt to persuade those who have dulled their capacity to learn by adopting an abusive attitude. The only thing I can do is ‘inform’ – and then let people make up their own minds.

BramGolah@gmail.com

There were some good insights on the show.

When I tell people the administration is incompetent, many people answer: Chaney is a smart guy. Now I know, the link between incompetence and smart is that they are ideologues, which makes their actions incompetent.

When Mark Shields says that a crime was committed in going to war, David Brooks looks at him and says: what was the crime?

Mark’s response: he gets that deer-in-the-headlights look
If there was a crime and he knew what it was, he should tell us.

If there is no crime, why all the hyperbole?

I’m not here to defined the administration. I figured out they were incompetent before the last presidential election. Apparently, it took the rest of the country two years to come to the same conclusion.

I want the unemotional facts – if there was a crime, I want to know what it was.

If people say there was a crime and there wasn’t, isn’t that an unethical and immoral thing to do? Falsely accuse?

This administration is a mirror to those people….

Ps enhabit – my motto: Confrontation leads to insight