Hope and Change
The left and all the usual suspects which unfortunately claims many of the Democrats are outraged that secret spying was going on and plans were being made to kill the people who were killing us.
The brutal unfairness of it all.
It is inconceivable that we would want to win a war in such a way and not even tell all 465 of the most reliable and trustworthy secret keepers on the planet about it.
That Cheney.
That Bush.
Bush-Cheney.
Well Eric Foxtrot Holden, Nancy Foxtrot Pelosi and Mike Foxtrotter Barrack Hussein are going to fix it so that nothing like this happens again. By the way, have I shown you this clip lately?
Maybe we ought to be building an aircraft carrier or a new missile and call it the Dick Cheney for having the sense and the stones to do what a man had to do when he had to do it.
Oh the "foxtrot"'s and the "mike foxtrot" thingy, I'm just trying to get us back our library card.
Have a Nice Day or Foxtrot Yankee which ever applies.
"honestly, I won't say a word."
I suppose you want your ten bucks. : )
ReplyDeleteThe left and all the usual suspects which unfortunately claims many of the Democrats are outraged that secret spying was going on and plans were being made to kill the people who were killing us.
The brutal unfairness of it all.
It is inconceivable that we would want to win a war in such a way and not even tell all 465 of the most reliable and trustworthy secret keepers on the planet about it.
- dear host
Except that briefing all 465 members wasn't required.
The CIA has come under intense scrutiny, with undesirable consequences, before - for backdoor funding of dubious or outright illegal operations.
This may be the first time the CIA comes under intense scrutiny, with undesirable consequences, for a relatively uncontroversial program that never swung into operation as a piece, but was anyhow funded for eight years by siphoning from other programs.
When was anyone supposed to spring this on the committee chairs? "By the by, we've had this program..."
The Executive enjoys a great and necessary amount of latitude with regard to the Agency (in contrast to that with regard to the military) as long as it observes Congressional oversight. You either brief those who pay the bills, or those who pay the bills are going to cast a dark(er) eye on the whole enterprise. And get all up in everyone's shit.
Don't do anyone any more favors.
This administration is as unlikely to push the issue as its predecessors, other than the short-lived, insanely imprudent Carter Kids, because the executive is highly protective of its prerogatives. One might need to pull something off the shelf in a pinch. Moreover, there is public perception.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt noise will be made. Business will go on, either effectually or ineffectually, as the case may be. Oh, and anonymous "wiki" writers will continue to pollute the lazy into half-baked complacency.
Can you believe it, the Russians are hard to get along with---
ReplyDeleteRussia says no Iran sanctions for START deal: report
Tue Jul 14, 2009
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia will not agree to tougher sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program in exchange for a new nuclear arms cuts deal with Washington, Interfax news agency quoted a foreign ministry source as saying Tuesday.
Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama's nuclear adviser suggested that progress on a U.S.-Russian nuclear arms pact could help persuade Moscow to be more cooperative on Iran.
"There are no reasons to link these issues or count on Russia being more cooperative in toughening sanctions against Iran if there is progress in talks with the United States on further cuts in strategic offensive weapons," the source said.
Russia is negotiating a new nuclear arms cuts deal with the United States to replace the 1991 START-1 pact, which expires in December. It is also involved in international efforts to persuade Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program.
The sharp tone of the Russian comments contrasted with the positive mood that dominated last week during Obama's visit to Moscow aimed at "resetting" thorny bilateral ties.
Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev committed themselves during the talks to working on the new START pact despite outstanding disagreements over U.S. plans to deploy elements of an anti-missile system in Europe.
Obama has said that the European elements of the missile shield will not be needed if Iran halts what the West argues is a military program to create its own nuclear bomb.
Russia, a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has been reluctant to allow strong sanctions against Iran and has praised Obama for promising to pursue direct dialogue with Iranian leaders.
Obama's special assistant for arms control, Gary Samore, made his comments about the potential for a change in Russia's stance at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies last week.
"If we make concessions on strategic nuclear issues the Russians are much more willing to be cooperative when it comes to Iran," Samore told experts.
A Kremlin source told Reuters that the exchange of remarks over START and Iran did not indicate any change in the overall atmosphere of Russia-U.S. contacts.
"It was nothing more than an exchange of remarks over a specific suggestion," the source said.
(And by God, if waterboarding can be briefed to HRH Pelosi, anything can.)
ReplyDelete"This administration is as unlikely to push the issue as its predecessors..."
ReplyDeleteIt isn't about the Admin, which has a keen interest in keeping all moving parts, um, moving. They've demonstrated that. It is about Congress.
In any event, it is hard to believe that a public, already showing signs of displeasure at the failing and overreaching moves of the president relating to economic matters, would really be distracted by show trials. Such trials can only remind them of what Bush’s successful pursuit of the terrorists let them forget: The prior administration did everything it could with a dreadfully inadequate bureaucracy to prevent further attacks on U.S. soil. And it succeeded in that effort despite the Democratic Party’s unending efforts to weaken our defenses.
ReplyDeleteStatute of Limitations About To Run Out, ACLU Warns, Show Trials Now or Never
Congress will learn only as much as the administration is willing to reveal.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Congress will not want to learn enough to dirty its own hands.
ReplyDeleteI take Congressional leaks seriously. Lets take one John Kerry. He personally leaked planted lies about several personal friends that ruined them and got men better than Kerry killed. Felix Rodriguez, John Hull, Rob Owen all patriots, smeared by congressional motormouths and that long faced turd from Massachusetts. Kerry made leaks to the press that these men were involved with cocaine smuggling. Laughable if you knew John Hull and Rodriguez.
ReplyDelete( I was not a friend of Felix but met him and would vouch for him)
Congress will learn only as much as the administration is willing to reveal.
ReplyDeleteTue Jul 14, 06:20:00 AM EDT
Allen, it's difficult to believe but true, that the pertinent Congressional members are routinely informed of the activities they fund. This is done to protect the agencies, programs, and individuals so involved as much as to fulfill oversight requirements.
Place leaks like a sieve, it's true, but so do those agencies - which provide newspapers with much material. Some of it even accurate on the rare occasion.
Intelligence Committee members, specifically, always have A LOT of information. Far, far more than the general public and at least as much, absent some details, as any ten, random SAP folks.
What's interesting is that the President himself does not have a right of access to all intelligence. We may be unique in that.
Mike Schmidt
ReplyDelete(And my hero, Pete Rose)
On June 10, 1974, Schmidt hit a pitch into a public address speaker suspended 117 feet above and 329 feet away from home plate in the Astrodome in Houston, Texas.
The ball then fell to the field, where, by the Astrodome's ground rules, it remained in play.
Since he had already started his slow home run trot, he was held to a single. Runners on first and second when the ball was hit each advanced only one base. Many experts agree the ball would have carried beyond 500 feet.
---
Schmidt demonstrated little emotion on the field. He had an unusual batting stance, turning his back somewhat to the pitcher and waving his posterior while waiting for the pitch. By standing far back in the batter's box, he made it impossible to jam him by pitching inside.
Schmidt was one of the best athletes of his time;
teammate Pete Rose once said,
"To have his body, I'd trade him mine and my wife's, and I'd throw in some cash."[5]
:-)
ReplyDeleteGolly gee, the den mother is on time and on target~
ReplyDeleteIt is not that Bush and Team43 tried to "Kill the bad guys", it's that they forgot to tell the Hall Monitors, and that, amigos, is illegal.
As illegal as Mannie Zelaya's attempt to 'reform' Honduras.
The Executive overreach, in the America, is something the Founders understood and made allowance for.
Checks and Balances, along with the "Power of the Purse".
They never envisioned the VP wielding Presidental authority, even in time of war. The VP being described as worth a "bucket of warm piss" by John Nance Garner, who held the job.
John Adams, a man who'd know, described it as “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived.”
Dick 'Five Deferment' Cheney finally found a better use of his time than defending the Constitution, in subverting it's principles. Proof that he was not even worthy of a bucket of warm piss...
Rose, a switch hitter, is the all-time Major League leader in hits (4,256), games played (3,562), at-bats (14,053)[1], and outs (10,328).
ReplyDeleteHe won three World Series rings, three batting titles, one Most Valuable Player Award, two Gold Gloves, the Rookie of the Year Award, and made 17 All-Star appearances at an unequaled five different positions (2B, LF, RF, 3B, and 1B).
Rose's nickname, "Charlie Hustle", was given to him for his unique playing style.
Even when being walked, Rose would sprint to first base, instead of the traditional trot to the base.
Rose was known for sliding headfirst into a base, his signature move.
This method is now used almost exclusively by stealing base runners today, and has been ever since the late '70s.
If only Cheney had been POTUS instead of the Shrub, we'd be a lot better off AND have preserved more of our Constitutional Liberties.
ReplyDeleteWhimps finish last.
ReplyDelete...or next to last to Amerikkka Hating Racist Marxists.
This thing is starting to blow back on the Democrats anyway.
ReplyDeleteYou mean Americans don't like America Haters?
ReplyDeleteSummer of 69
ReplyDeleteEmpower every enemy.
ReplyDeleteSabotage all allies.
We Are the Whirled.
Blogger allen said...
ReplyDelete"ash,
In a world of adults (that is one of science), it is the challenger who must provide details for the falsification of a hypothesis or thesis. The ball is in your court. In an adult world, whinning does not constitute a refutation (although even college seniors try it, from time-to-time - as they do ad hominem, sissy slaps and pouting). Yes, ash, you are confused; and you may also be immature and intellectually dishonest.
The leg work is yours. The apology will be mine if you prove me wrong."
ummm, allen, we are not trying to confirm or dis-confirm a scientific hypothesis but rather debate a point of law. You make your arguments and I'll make mine and the judges here can decide. But, if we accept your criteria that we are actually conducting science then a single piece of contradictory evidence is enough to render your theory invalid. Your statement "and may, under current law, be executed on sight" rises to that level.
I'll cut you some slack though and not leave it at that. There is a lot of law involved and Rat thrashed you pretty good with that Supreme court ruling on Hamden, and no, contrary to your misapprehension, US supreme court rulings are not meant to be narrow rulings on a single unique case but rather they choose to hear cases that allow the concepts ruled upon to apply over a broad spectrum of cases.
Back to your specific argument:
"I have always believed that, since the Taliban etc do not constitute an internationally recognized government and cannot, therefore, field an internationally recognized military, they constitute "unlawful combatants" and may, under current law, be executed on sight"
Who was in power of the Sovereign nation of Afghanistan prior to Sept. 11 2001? Answer: the Taliban. So, you are wrong on the "internationally recognized government" statement. But I'll even grant you that canard and deal with the more specific case of "unlawful" combatants. You know, terrorists running about creating mayhem. Contrary to your belief they are covered under the Geneva conventions and once an individual has surrendered, or been captured on the field of battle, you cannot simply execute him or her.
" ARTICLE 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590006
cont'd
ReplyDeleteNow, allen, you may think that the US should not abide by this treaty that it has signed, and you may think that the Supreme Court ruling shouldn't have been made as it has but so fucking what? It still renders your statement "they constitute "unlawful combatants" and may, under current law, be executed on sight"
In short that is just plain false. The Geneva Conventions, to which the US is signatory, and US law, both do not allow the summary execution of anyone on sight. Do I expect you to man up and fulfill "The apology will be mine if you prove me wrong." Naw, I don't expect that of you.
Please pardon my recent absence, I didn't know you would miss me so much, but I've been on holiday with only a cursory tracking of what has gone on here at the bar. If you need help clearing up some issues around the popular icon that Neda has become I may be able, or inclined, to help. Then again, maybe not.
So, the Attorney General is supposed to dispassionately apply the law and prosecute based upon the law the violations of it. Should the current AG kowtow to his Political master, Obama (who appointed him) and not prosecute, look forward as Obama has asked, or should he fulfill his mandate?
ReplyDeleteThe AJ is to prosecute crime not create it where there is apparently none.
ReplyDeleteThe Attorney General should be s...
ReplyDelete---
WALK ON BY
DIONNE WARWICK
...unexpected video.
More Cherry Picked Polls
ReplyDelete--
The Taliban wasn't really 'internationally recognized', for what's it worth. If I recall right, maybe two countries recognized the Taliban, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, I think.
Thankfully I got a big day, and will miss the arguments.
Doug, the EB is looking for someone to help run the place for a bit. You or Linear are obvious good choices.
Later...
Indeed, al-Bob, Linear is an EXCELLENT CHOICE!
ReplyDelete...which thread refers to the call for help from the Barkeeps?
One of yesterdays. I gotta run.
ReplyDeleteYou the man, al-Doug!
Sonia Roseannebarrio
ReplyDelete- Miller
Yes, Deuce, the AG must use his/her discretion on what constitutes crime worthy of prosecution. Does torture constitute a crime? Does concealing from congress, for 7 years, a CIA program constitute a crime worth pursuing? How politicized is the AG?
ReplyDeletepass the popcorn...
oh ya, how about warrantless wiretaps of US citizens on the mainland US, does that constitute a crime? Interesting legal issues fer shore. I'd like to see what the courts say...
ReplyDeleteBobal, it doesn't really matter who recognized the government of Afghanistan at the time - the Geneva convention imposes obligations on all who signed it - if someone has been subdued and is in your custody you can't just kill them.
ReplyDeleteJust a few of the stones' Ms. Palin handed her stoners.
ReplyDeleteash..
ReplyDeletethe Geneva convention imposes obligations on all who signed it - if someone has been subdued and is in your custody you can't just kill them.
Actually the Geneva Convention allows for summary execution of terrorists, those that do not wear uniforms that commit war from civilian areas...
We ARE allowed to simply shoot them...
No, WiO. A nation which signs the Geneva Conventions does not only have to afford its protections to all others who have signed it but to all people whether they have signed it or not.
ReplyDeleteash...
ReplyDeletenot all peoples are covered under the 3rd geneva convention...
not in uniform terrorists that do not obey the rules of law, use civilians for target practice are not entitled to the Conventions.
those that are captured, without any standard uniform, while committing armed aggression upon others may be interviews and promptly shot...
My dad had for years on his desk an old black and white photo of a German spy being blind-folded by a US soldier moments before execution.
ReplyDeleteI think we tend to forget that the Hague and Geneva Conventions work together. And even given the two, the noble attempt to limit war to conventional armies by granting only these certain rights ("War is not meant to be a free-for-all," as the lead Nuremberg prosecutor put it) was bound to to be found wanting in an era of unconventional warfare on the part of both sides.
Nevertheless, the coin in trade for the US is that we are the Good Guys. Big G, big G.
The real difficulty sometimes lies in not inflating that coin.
The very first sentence of Article 3 eliminates the Taliban and al Qaeda from Geneva Conventions protections of Article 3.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
This was most certainly "a conflict of international character." That the Supremes chose to misinterpret the situation does not change the criteria. The circumstances under other articles of the Convention would have been much for dire for the "evil doers."
Secondly, it can be argured that the Taliban were in no way reprsentative of an Afghan which had at one time been the signatories of the Convention.
The fact that no further Conventions were assembled since 9-11 is indicative that the whirled has no interest in resolving the issues raised by this most recent resurgence of militant Islam.
Whit, the error you are making, and, I presume the Supremes did not make, is that "each party to the conflict shall be bound to..." If one party does not abide by the agreement, or if they aren't signatory to the agreement it still doesn't mean that you, as signatory, can violate the agreed upon actions that you will take.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the legal requirements of the Geneva Conventions US soldiers also must conform to the their code of justice and other stuff. I'm not that familiar with the specifics but simply put - even if a terrorist piece of scum, bin Laden for example, is taken into custody a US soldier cannot, legally, summarily execute him.
Neither the Taliban or al-Qaeda qualified under Article 3 or Article 4. That was the crux of the problem. The Bush Administration rightly classified them as enemy combatants.
ReplyDeleteIt was more appropriate to treat them as pirates rather than soldiers in uniform capture in battle.
I thought I read where Congress "authorized" the program.
ReplyDelete"The Bush Administration rightly classified them as enemy combatants."
ReplyDeleteEnemy combatants are simply EPWs, with all the protections afforded EPWs.
The Bush administration just complicated things by introducing civilian courts of law. Trying to straddle the fence. They certainly didn't anticipate the thorny consequences.
Live and learn.
ReplyDeleteNone of this, of course, touches upon the efforts to kill them, which are not only kosher but damned good-tasting.
ReplyDeleteAs long as you keep the hall monitors apprised.
ReplyDeleteash,
ReplyDeleteHad you even the most miniscule knowledge of the Geneva Conventions, you would have known that neither “unlawful belligerents” nor "unlawful combatants" appear therein. Consequently, attempting to claim rights for nonentities has been another of your desperate exercises in warm, fuzzy futility.
How such persons, as defined at the moment of encounter, have been handled has been and remains highly subjective. Generally speaking, however, the rule has been, “To the victor go the spoils”. That is why you will not see Russians brought before international courts for acts committed in Chechnya, for example.
This entire exercise has been for the purpose of showing your utter contempt for truth, probity, and intellectual honesty.
wiki…wiki…wiki…humbug!
Among others, CRS Report to Congress
They're a bunch of drunken thugs, allen. The stereotype is really, truly dead-on. An insurpassably damaged people. I can't believe you would hold them up as an exemplar.
ReplyDeleteYou the man, al-Doug!
ReplyDeleteLinear seconds the motion.
Spare the patrons the banality of a second string mind, barkeeps.
The phrases “unlawful belligerents” nor "unlawful combatants" are modern construtions for the purposes of spin control. They do not denote any type of status in the law.
ReplyDeleteThere are civil criminals and there are combatants.
In Iraq, there are only criminals, now. A reading of the daily press releases confirms that there are lots of arrests reported, while no firefights are.
Rightly or wrongly the Supremes have decided, as is their wont and duty.
You are free to disagree, but are in the wrong as to the law, if you do. As wi"o" was wrong to believe it was legal to shoot trespassers on posted land.
Feel free to quote Chapter and Verse from the Geneva Accords, to prove your point as to summary executions being permitted by them.
No one in the US military is authorized to execute anyone that has been captured, summarily.
Which is not to say it has never happened, only that it is illegal to do so. As Lt. William Calley discovered after his 1968 incident in Mo Lai, Vietnam.
There have been a series of related points made, as to the conduct of the war. It is important to remember what our den mother said.
There is nothing wrong with programs developed and designed to kill the enemy, but those pesky hall monitors have to punch the hall pass.
allen you can cite bad legal opinions as much as you like, but as rat has noted, the supremes have addressed this issue. Since you were so reticent to accept the wiki version how about this page from the Supreme court? I'll even bold a portion of it to make it nice and simple for you:
ReplyDelete"HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 05–184. Argued March 28, 2006—Decided June 29, 2006
Pursuant to Congress’ Joint Resolution authorizing the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, or-ganizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, commit-ted or aided” the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks(AUMF), U. S. Armed Forces invaded Afghanistan. During the hos-tilities, in 2001, militia forces captured petitioner Hamdan, a Yemeni national, and turned him over to the U. S. military, which, in 2002,transported him to prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Over a yearlater, the President deemed Hamdan eligible for trial by militarycommission for then-unspecified crimes. After another year, he was charged with conspiracy “to commit . . . offenses triable by militarycommission.” In habeas and mandamus petitions, Hamdan assertedthat the military commission lacks authority to try him because (1)neither congressional Act nor the common law of war supports trial by this commission for conspiracy, an offense that, Hamdan says, isnot a violation of the law of war; and (2) the procedures adopted totry him violate basic tenets of military and international law, includ-ing the principle that a defendant must be permitted to see and hear the evidence against him. The District Court granted habeas relief and stayed the commis-sion’s proceedings, concluding that the President’s authority to estab-lish military commissions extends only to offenders or offenses triableby such a commission under the law of war; that such law includesthe Third Geneva Convention; that Hamdan is entitled to that Con-vention’s full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisonerof war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a pris-oner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)"
Please pardon the awkward copy and paste but you can find it here in its original form:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf
oops, that last line was cut off. Here is the rest
ReplyDelete"...violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10
U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Con-vention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the ac-cused would never see or hear."
ash,
ReplyDeleteYou have hung your hat, for the longest time, on the Geneva Conventions. Changing the subject now to an unrelated opinion of the Supreme Court does not redeem your ignorance. Moreover, you would do well to read the Court's various opinions; you may not find the verdict as cut and dried as you hope. They rarely are.
ash,
ReplyDeleteIf it helps, the Conventions do not mention the handling of Martians either.
wow, impressive argument allen.
ReplyDeleteFaith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
ReplyDelete--Ambrose Bierce--
The time is overdue to dust off Lysenkoism...
Abstract
In the late 1940’s Russian scientists had found themselves subjected to the political witch hunting by Stalin's regime. Before that such witch hunting was limited to poets, artists, writers, filmmakers, and musicians, who often saw their works assailed by communist officials on the grounds of "ideological impurity" or "bourgeois influence". That time science and scientists became the victim.
In a really Orwellian style genetics, psychologists and cybernetics were fired, exiled and even killed. But the most alarming and often overlooked fact is that Lysenkoism was not an aberration or "excess" but a natural product of Stalinism. Moreover an important observation that the author is trying to communicate by writing this paper is that while the original form was a byproduct of Stalinism, the phenomenon itself is more universal and can be considered as a special, previously unknown flavor of high demand cult. For simplicity we will call if technocult.
This paper tried to show that Lysenkoism was the first successful attempt to transplant high demand religious cults methods into scientific community and should be understood as such.
The main point of this paper is that Lysenkoism is not only about intellectual pogrom, destruction of real science by pseudoscience committed in the name of a particular political agenda and more or less openly supported by the ruling party/government officials. It is also (and probably more important) a self-sustainable cult-like system of distortions, omissions, and lies that are designed to support faulty or fraudulent research of the selected "politically correct" pseudo-scientists. In this sense it's closely related to "cargo cult" phenomenon that is better known in the Western hemisphere as well as science distortions that are associated with the military-industrial complex.
Nikolai Bezroukov
A thread with the word Cheney or Republican in the title and the classical conditioning of the bar's two Pavlov's dogs is on display.
ReplyDeleteFunny.
Are those individuals currently being targeted and killed by Predator strikes also afforded Geneva conventions?
Where are those jobs ?
ash,
ReplyDeleteThank you! Indeed, the best arguments usually follow Oakum’s dictum.
Ash, I try to avoid using debating points on subjects about which I know absolutely nothing. To your credit, you follow the leanings of subjects:
"To each his sufferings: all are men,
Condemned alike to groan;
The tender for another’s pain,
The unfeeling for his own.
Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
Since sorrow never comes to late,
And happiness too swiftly flies.
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
Tis folly to be wise."
___Thomas Gray
that would be "Gray's subjects"
ReplyDelete...where ignorance is bliss,
ReplyDeleteTis folly to be wise.
Last quoted to me by mom, who's 95 and counting. A graduate of the public school system, c. 1932.
Chuckling here.
"They're a bunch of drunken thugs, allen. The stereotype is really, truly dead-on. An insurpassably damaged people. I can't believe you would hold them up as an exemplar."
ReplyDelete___________
You must have been there. Damage is kind.
" Does concealing from congress, for 7 years, a CIA program constitute a crime worth pursuing? How politicized is the AG? "
ReplyDelete---
It was not implemented,
thus
trigger points were not reached,
thus
IT WAS NOT CONCEALED!
(in terms of the law)
Talking points dribbling dumbass.
c. 1932, when 8th graders knew more US History than contemporary college grads.
ReplyDeleteHave to think about Lysenkoism wrt to Climate Change, too, linear.
ReplyDeleteNever crossed my mind before.
Live RPG impaled in his abdomen, Army medical team saves his life
ReplyDeleteA soldier in a Humvee convoy in Afghanistan is impaled by an RPG that fails to detonate. The unexploded RPG is stuck in his abdomen with the fins sticking out.
The medic and his brothers took care of him anyway to stop the bleeding during the heat of battle.
Others are wounded.
The medevac bird arrives and discovers the patient has live ordnance inside.
The rules say this patient cannot come aboard. Without hesitation, the medevac crew uploads him, calls in a critical patient with shrapnel wounds. The receiving surgeon at the FST cuts away the uniform and sees fins sticking out. He's no ordnance expert, but knows ordnance when he sees it.
The rules say get the patient out of there and list him as expected to die. To hell with all that, the surgeon forms a volunteer team, gets an EOD expert over there pronto, and together they pull out the RPG and get it to a sandbagged area. End result is Spc.
Channing Moss survives.
Two things this evening;
ReplyDelete1. I heard that most Taliban detainees in Afghanistan are foreign (not Afghani)
B. The deficit is now over $1 trillion. That's the shortfall in this year's budget!
"Which is not to say it has never happened, only that it is illegal to do so. As Lt. William Calley discovered after his 1968 incident in Mo Lai, Vietnam."
ReplyDelete---
It is spin to equate Vietnamese Civilians with Taliban Babykillers.
Did they say what they were, whit?
ReplyDeleteAre the majority Pakistani, per chance?
Are they nonAfghani Pashtuns or really foreign to the area?
Pure Hysteria, Whit:
ReplyDeleteOnce the stimulus kicks in, the economy will expand at such a rate that deficits will be a distant memory.
Just
You
Wait.
No, doug, what is under discussion is not the status of those that were killed, but the guidelines and legal restraints that the US operates under.
ReplyDeleteLT Calley made a decison to sumaarily execute a number of detainees. That was their status, detainees, not civilians. or combatants.
Once the civilian or combatant is detained, their status changes, to detainnee. They are then accorded, by US, all the rights and privileges accorded by the Geneva Accords. It is not up to the US combatants to make that final determination, once the subject is detained. That is US law, like it or not.
You can argue that Hamdan was ill considered and wrongly decided, but that does not change the results of the decision, until it is overturned, by the Supremes or some further act of Congress and the States.
Still waiting for the Chapter and Verse of the Geneva Accords that permit summary executions.
You fellas stated it was the reality of the Accords, I certainly would like to read it, first hand, or even an abridged wiki edition.
That's what the Reaganites said, too, doug.
ReplyDeleteAbout the debts being incurred, back then. They were wrong, too.
The debt was never paid, just rolled over and over and over again.
Re: exemplars
ReplyDeleteI am not holding up the Russians as exemplars, if that was the point. I simply point out the reality. We have our way, the Afghans have their way, the Chinese have their way, the Russians have their way...Which explains why, for all the verbiage, the Conventions remain nearly incomprehensible, even to those who signed off. A reading of the debates is illustrative.
Bottom line - war IS hell, and only well appointed fools believe that reams of meaningless gibberish will make it otherwise.
Those Chinese that are being sent to Bermuda are the proof of the tasting, doug.
ReplyDeleteNot all those detained, in Afghanistan were Taliban babykillers.
Though it may have been believed they were babykillers, when captured.
Reality, as it turns out is that those Chinese are our friends and that we were played. Maybe by General Abdul Rashid Dostum, that staunch Uzbech Communist and ally of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Re: summary executions
ReplyDeleteRead the Belgian reservations on this score...easily found off-wiki.
By "gibberish" do you mean to say that it does not permit summary executions?
ReplyDeleteChapter and Verse, amigo, come on, you said it was there.
Time to be on time and target, or admit you've missed the mission parameters.
wiki will do, really.
Let's read what the US signed off on, allen.
ReplyDeleteNot what some Europeon wrote in the margins of his copy.
In every case, the signatories of the Conventions reserved for themselves exemptions and exceptions predicated upon national prerogatives. The world is NOT black and white as dogmatists would have it, and as a reading of any piece of legislation or court ruling would attest.
ReplyDeleteHad the Court held that its finding was universally applicable, it would have ordered the immediate release and/or trial of ALL detainees. Did it? Why?
We are discussing US Law and it's relationship to and with the Geneva Accords, as a Treaty that the US has signed and ratified.
ReplyDeleteCreating the Constituional law of our land, as signed and ratified.
Not as was discussed and discarded in the formative stages of international negotiations.
Re: European marginal scribbling
ReplyDeleteGosh, I thought they were the world.
The only thing I have missed, DR, is some quality reading time of a non-wiki nature. It is amazing what can be learned from authoriative books.
The Court did not order the release of all the detainees, but it did order the release of the Chinamen, to be sure.
ReplyDeleteThe Courts allowed for further detention while awaiting trial in legally constituted Courts, rather than the Commissions.
It would also allow for them to be held, indefinately, if provided POW status. Obama is going to try to hold some indefinately, without trial, if published reports are accurate.
That Team43 never tried to address the problem, but wasted assets and effort promoting extra-legal methods that could never stand the test of time is water under the bridge. Obama is caught in the same web and I doubt an Executive Order, signed by him, will be enough to pass legal muster, either.
I did not claim that the Geneva convention permitted summary executions.
ReplyDelete***********************
As to the foreign Taliban captured in Afghanistan, I don't know what their nationalities are. The statement, by a British soldier, was made in the context that most Afghans do not like the Taliban.
I've read the Accords, before.
ReplyDeleteI know what they contain.
It is obvioous that you never have. Your points baseless at best, fraudulent at worse.
Back to the great and good books, amigo?
Join the den mother's book club if that interests you. I have a more than suitable library, but what of it? Being as it is hard to link to a book and I'm no transcribing secretary.
I realize that you did not claim that about the Accords, whit.
ReplyDeleteIt was allen and wi"o" that made that claim.
I'd like to read it, I really would.
The majority of the Afghans could dislike the Taliban, the Pashtuns making up just 45% of the total Afghan population, and even at that not being a monolithic bloc in support of the Taliban.
Lincoln won the election of 1860 with 39.8% of the vote.
ReplyDeleteMost residents of the US did not like Mr Lincoln enough to vote for him. And there was a Civil War, after the election, to boot.
The Taliban actors are trying to take control of the tribal society, as the British cavalryman that doug keeps providing links to describes as key to controlling the area.
Have to think about Lysenkoism wrt to Climate Change, too, linear.
ReplyDeleteThank you. That was my point. Though obscured by it's vague applicability to another patron.
Bloomberg Economics has a fellow who says the deficit will hit $1.8 trillion by the end of the year.
ReplyDeleteDrudge says that Obama is ready to push health care reform through on partisan lines if need be.
DR,
ReplyDeleteHad you actually read the Conventions, you would know that the "combatants" both you and ash took the bait on do NOT exist.
Trying to argue that the Conventions protect unlawful combatants is like trying to argue that the Endangered Spieces Act protects Unicorns...interesting, perhaps, but pointless.
I threw chum in the water and stirred up the usual scavengers of negativity. My point will be taken by those who matter.
The applicability is not vague, but your ball to carry for a while.
ReplyDeleteIt is part of the cultural shift we have all witnessed. Part of the shift is observable, thanks to film and video. I'd reference the 4th of July videos that duece posted, in that regard.
The people, over the past sixty years grew from thin to obese and the tenor of the events from patriotic civic ceremonies to hedonistic fun & games.
Psuedo science replacing real science, Erlich and Holdren stand as examples, there.
While PBS intellectuals promote that modern religions are based upon an equivalency of ancient myths.
That the interests of the Russell Company have transcended time and while the corporate structure has changed the influence those interests wield have grown exponentially.
All are observable traits of our society, seems to me.
You are right, allen, the Convention does not mention combatants, it references "Persons".
ReplyDeleteIn the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Words have meaning. For the US, once you're out of the fight, tou are covered by Article 3. Afghanistan is not part of an international conflict. It is local and unrelated to any other conflict. Iraq requiring an Authorization of Use of Force that was seperate from that used in Afghanistan.
Making them independent and local, in the judgement of the Federal Courts as well as the Congress.
heh, here's news that will bring tears of joy to some hearts here, at least one.
ReplyDeleteI've hired a young lawyeress to handle the public presentation of my proposed zoning changes, and platting.
This is a girl I really took to.
Today, I spoke with her husband, a realtor fellow that works right below her office.
Great folks, both. One from Cottonwood, Idaho, the other from Dayton, Washington.
Kind of folk I like.
Anyways, the reason the realtor husband couldn't meet with me yesterday is because he and his lawyer wife, and a secong generation farmer named Gene, truly great guy, silent, thoughtful, workeveryday, were with the County Commissioners--now democratic 2 to 1, with the pub on leave, for some reason.
At issues was a tax assessment of the old farmer here, Gene, one of those dastardly guys that actually helped build the society here.
The Idaho Code says that you can rezone your land, of which Gene has the very best, and even develope it, with streets and what not, just like I have done, and Gene is doing, and that it is still assessed as farmland, as long as you are doing that, farming it, and it has been put to no other use.
These shithole new democratic commissioners, begging for money, as they always do, latched on to a provision in the new City Code of Moscow, Idaho, Nancy Cheney presiding, before we kicked the last council members out, last election, which says that no use of farming or ranching can be made of land zoned for uses other than that.
On the basis of this, they taxed the bejesus poor old Gene through the roof, on his rezoned and platted land, still being farmed, not a house built, and the democratic commissioners denied his appeal.
Gene of course, one of the real builders of our society here, (no felonies, not even a traffic ticket) daughter married a guy that's Superintendant of Public Schools in a town near here, other daughter married a guy from the U of I who made it big in Southern Cal, decided to say fuck this bullshit.
Appeal to the state tax commission.
That's the first step.
I told the realtor husband of my new lawyer lady, who is quite quick, a lot like Sarah Palin, of good reputation, that I'd volunteer to join Gene in a lawsuit, if it goes to court, after the state tax commission ruling, if it goes against him, which I doubt it will, me being a person similarily situated.
Idaho Law trumps City Code, is what father taught son, so I don't think it will go that far.
But I will join Gene, a wonderful older feller man of a generation older than I, we'll hire this young lady lawyer, who is a generation younger than both of us.
Gene always lent me a truck when I needed it, when I was starting out.
Democrats are craven blood sucking bastards, all of them, even here.
The purpose of the law is to make development possible, to give people a chance to have a place to live, and to remember the Constitution.
Some people have forgotten much of this, even here, at this site, one or two.
Democrats are craven bastards, always sucking, this new breed of democrat.
This development might well bring a thrill to some hearts here.
(By the way, I have witnessed Gene making a park for the city at his own expense, all forgotten now, just as my ancestors gave the land and street right of way for our first deep artesian well)
The people were just better in those older days.
I told you that the rezoning could change the legal status of that land, as regards the taxes, boobie.
ReplyDeleteSad thing, but not at all unheard of. You doubt the case, that it'll go far?
Why is that?
The City has the lawyer on staff, you and Gene do not. The City lawyer will run up your billable minutes with the new lady lawyer, first off.
They will argue, in the end, that while the land may still be utilized as farmland, it should be taxed at the highest and best use for which it has been zoned, as that is the intended land use of the property holder.
Down here, as long as there property is held as farm or ranchlands, it is taxed on that basis. But once the property has a new approved use, in your and Gene's cases McMansion lots, per the request of the owner, the tax status changes to the newer highest and best use.
Real Estate development not a game for amatuers, at least not in today's enviorment.
Afghanistan is not part of an international conflict. It is local and unrelated to any other conflict. Iraq requiring an Authorization of Use of Force that was seperate from that used in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteBravo sierra...
Al-Qaeda moved across international borders to stage attacks all over the whirled. The Taliban gave aid and comfort. Aided and abetted the enemy in addition to committing heinous crimes against humanity even to this day crossing international borders to do it.
They used to try to tax the raw land, as subdividable even if was still zoned Ag, if there was no agribusiness in place.
ReplyDeleteThus the goat story.
But if the land has been rezoned, you could be up against some hefty legal fees and eventual defeat, regardless.
You'd lose, down here in AZ.
You dont' know shit about Idaho law, asshole.
ReplyDeleteBut you may get your jollies off of jeolousy, temporarily.
And, even if you should win, you lose, Libertarian.
Rat, why don't you go somewhere else, PLEASE.
Nobody likes you.
Your first wife had the good idea.
I happen to think uou are right, whit. That our being there makes it an international conflict.
ReplyDeleteThe Government of the United States, in its' wisdom disagrees.
They win.
I'm not here to be liked, boobie.
ReplyDeleteI'm here to be entertained.
You do a good job of it.
You are right, Idaho law is not familar to me, so I do not reference it. Lawyers that work for Cities, those I know. Their tactics are not opaque, but crystal clear.
Scenes that we've all seen before.
Same as the dreadful Dems used on Ms Palin, they'll use on you, amigo.
Run up your costs, while you have no cash flow to cover them.
Deep pockets, baby, the City has 'em, do you and Gene?
I'm here to be entertained.
ReplyDeleteExactly what I and many others have figured out long ago.
Not a man to be involved in a serious discussion, between human beings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete