Sunday, March 18, 2012
When you've lost the New York Times...
Lest you cannot conceive of the New York Times hammering on Barack Obama and Eric Holder, consider this strip from this morning's paper...
That one definitely left a mark.
19 Comments:
By 
MTF, at
Sun Mar 18, 12:03:00 PM:
What's really interesting is that the Times believes the only cost of the sophistry is "the moral high ground". I guess it's not worth mentioning the subversion of the Constitution.
By pam, at
Sun Mar 18, 12:11:00 PM:
Isn't that implied, MTF? I loved this.
By 
, at
Sun Mar 18, 12:34:00 PM:
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Mar 18, 01:42:00 PM:
The politician in me smiles. The lawyer in me cringes.
By pam, at
Sun Mar 18, 01:58:00 PM:
Dawnfire82, I can only imagine.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Mar 18, 03:55:00 PM:
Perhaps not. I'm actually on the President's side here. US citizens who take up arms for an enemy are not entitled to "due process." Nobody shed tears or filed lawsuits on behalf of US citizens who joined the SS and were slain or for tens of thousands of Confederate prisoners. I think that hand-wringing and heaping moral condemnation because an al-Qaeda propagandist, US citizen or not, got exploded is foolish.
Let's pretend for a moment that the critics get their way; US citizens, even those who are bona fide members of foreign terrorist organizations who deliberately slaughter Americans, are entitled to due process rights. Practically, that makes them untouchable. In this universe, the leader of al-Qaeda would be immune to the kind of raid that bagged OBL so long as he was an American citizen. Congratulations Adam Gadahn, you've been promoted!
In the absence of an established, recognized, and legitimate government that 1) has an extradition treaty with the US and 2) is able and willing to arrest the individual and observe the fundaments of due process itself, they will never be lawfully arrested and turned over to us. Reminder: these people hide in chaotic places with 'governments' generally unfriendly to us and our interests (Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc.).
Moreover, if the fifth amendment applies then surely the fourth does as well. In that case, the suspect's houses, papers, and effects would be inadmissible in court unless a proper warrant had been issued. Could you imagine going to ask a Pakistani judge to supply a warrant to search and seize evidence in an al-Qaeda leader's hideout when the Pakistani government is, in fact, hosting them?
Imagine then the fiasco if such a person was apprehended but the prosecution failed for illegal evidence (much of which was certainly obtained "unlawfully" by intelligence agencies or the military).
The Bill of Rights should not apply to enemy paramilitary fighters in foreign countries now any more than it should have applied to Indian tribes who revolted against US authority, to Confederates in the Civil War, to US citizens fighting for the Axis, etc. War is not law enforcement, and it drives me crazy that so many people apparently cannot understand the difference.
By , at
Sun Mar 18, 04:01:00 PM:
Obama got to be President because of his professed opposition to Iraq. Were it not for the moveon.org anti-Iraq crowd supporting Obama, Hillary would likely have been the Democratic nominee and be President today.
But Obama never cared about Iraq or Afghanistan. His focus has always been on transforming America.
Once in office Obama gave the generals what they wanted in Afghanistan. He only pulled out of Iraq in time for it not to be a 2012 campaign issue, but not so far in advance that it might “blow up” on him beforehand. Gitmo is still open. Obama killed Osama, and kisses SEALs. I’m surprised he didn’t have a cameo in Act of Valor.
So for the first time in a long time we have a Democrat running for President who can’t be accused of being weak on national security. That’s often the issue that hangs the Democrat. But not this time. Well played, sir.
Obama/Axelrod will often run with memes that seem adverse to Obama but they capture mindshare, are purposefully divisive, and serve as diversions. The waterboarding stories involving Holder are examples.
I call shenanigans on this one, with the Times in on it. Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
Meanwhile Paul Ryan is riffing on “This coming debt crisis is the most predictable crisis we've ever had in this country. And look what's happening.” Ryan’s trying to get attention with the FY2013 budget he’s coming out with. That should be the real focus.
Meanwhile, in his weekly address, Obama is blaming high gas prices on evil Wall Street speculators and “subsidies” to Big Oil. So who are you going to believe, Obama or your lying eyes.
By , at
Sun Mar 18, 04:27:00 PM:
Once in office Obama gave the generals what they wanted in Afghanistan.
Not so much. They asked for at least 10,000 more troops than he gave.
But, you are right that the fact that he can say he gave 30,000 and that so many people believe he gave the generals what they asked for will certainly play in his favor.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Mar 18, 07:23:00 PM:
Jesse James: Wanted Dead or Alive.
Billy the Kid: Wanted Dead or Alive.
Sam and Belle Starr: Wanted Dead or Alive.
It's an American tradition.
By W.LindsayWheeler, at
Sun Mar 18, 08:14:00 PM:
Let me remind Dawnfire that any American in the SS (even if there were any) or in the Confederacy---where all wearing UNIFORMS and are not terrorists. If you are a lawyer this is frightening. Terrorists wear no uniform. Any person in uniform are all subject to the Geneva convention and as a Southerner, to imply that Confederate soldiers could be killed on a whim is outrageous.
Sherman's march to the sea was a terrible crime, unjustified. All soldiers regardless of what deserve humane treatment.
What say you about Americans that signed up and served in the Red Brigades of the Spanish Civil War? Who fought for and with Marxists, the most murderous ideology ever!
I think you need a serious rethink of history and military issues.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Mar 19, 01:20:00 AM:
"If you are a lawyer this is frightening."
Fifth amendment protections do not apply to military enemies, wearing specially colored clothes or not.
In fact, there is an entire other body of law that applies to such people, known coloquially as the Laws of War. And the application of the Laws of War do not, wonder of wonders, rest upon whether the subjects involved are wearing specially colored clothes. Hezb Allah has uniforms; you can find pictures on the Internet. Does this magically make them not-terrorists? The Sadr militia in Iraq had uniforms, and were even bold enough to wear them for a while. I guess they weren't terrorists either, car bombings, assassinations, and tortures of random civilians aside. I suppose if al-Qaeda just puts on a badge, colored hat, or some other mark "distinguishable at a distance" (which is all that is required) then, lo and behold, they're not terrorists either.
Uniforms are not magical talismans that turn thugs and terrorists into soldiers, else the Bloods, Cryps, and Hell's Angels would all count as such.
If a "soldier" is not a card-carrying member of a formal military force of a nation-state, then he has have to meet certain requirements in order to receive Prisoner of War protections under the much-ballyhooed Geneva Conventions, including having a uniform, a command hierarchy, and following the rules of war himself. If he does not, his fate upon capture is to be determined by military tribunal and he is subject to execution as a battlefield "spy" (the quotes because it's an archaic term that doesn't exactly match up with modern definitions of "spy"). Although the laws were not codified like they are now, Confederate soldiers fit squarely within the definition of 'prisoner of war' in use at the time. But that doesn't mean that they received, or deserved, constitutional protections.
And I didn't imply that Confederate soldiers could be killed on a whim (although, technically, they could be; there is no actual requirement to accept surrenders). You just don't know what you're talking about.
And I don't know anything about the Red Brigades in the Spanish Civil War except that they lost, and so am unfit to pass judgment on their status as lawful combatants.
[See what I did there, humbly admitting that I didn't know enough about a subject to discuss it properly? You might want to try that out.]
By , at
Mon Mar 19, 09:43:00 AM:
The one constant in life is that the NYT is always wrong.
A million things Obama does wrong, high praise. A few things he does right, complaints.
Bob from Ohio
By W.LindsayWheeler, at
Mon Mar 19, 10:12:00 AM:
Treating enemy soldiers humanely has absolutely nothing to do with "constitionality". The Laws of Chivalry were developed during the Middle Ages under Christian auspices.
In Classical Antiquity, the Spartans never chased anybody down. Once a man quite fighting, it was beneath them to kill unarmed, non-fighting men. This is Western Culture. Unlike Semitic Culture which put all cities under the ban and everybody was killed, men, women and children.
It is a cultural thing. European culture is about mercy and giving quarter. This "out to kill everything and anybody" is not European culture. America at the time of the Civil War was a Christian country and both sides adhered to somewhat Christian values. It had nothing to do with "constitutionality" but with Christianity. Mercy and giving quarter are Western/European/Christian values and standards. What is happening is that Semitic values of "Torch Earth" and of the ban are changing/revolutionizing Western conduct of war.
And let me remind you Dawnfire that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The Palestinians don't own F16s or M1A1 Abrams tanks. The imbalance of arms produces fifth generation style combat. That can't be helped. And just because the enemies of Israel engage in fifth generation combat doesn't mean that mountain dew swilling joystick cowboys in an air conditioned room can extirpate whomever they please from an airconditioned room sitting on a recliner.
And please don't compare Semitic war fighting techniques with European war fighting techniques. Israel uses torture and so does America with its rendition prisons just as much the Sadr militia. Except America and Israel get the write the rules. "Their torture" is legal while Muslims torture is illegal and makes them terrorists.
Just depends on what side your on.
The only terrorist in the world is America itself. It is one large terrorist organization.
By , at
Mon Mar 19, 09:15:00 PM:
Mr. Wheeler, your grasp of reality and history are, to say the least, rather tenuous.
That Christian nation, especially the Confederates, would never have allowed something to happen like Libby Prison or Andersonville, would they? And Nathan Bedford Forest at Fort Pillow? Look it up.
The Spartans. What can you say? How many Athenian Greeks returned from the campaign at Syracuse (after capture), when the natives were generalled by a Spartan? More of that historic chivalry, I guess. Less than a thousand out of 60 thousand made it home. The wounded Athenian prisoners left on the beach at Syracuse were slaughtered by that same Spartan led army.
And I think the last point is that you are most definitely not on "our" side. I can't decide if you occasional rants here are calculated to create a furor for your own amusement, or you are just that unhinged and delusional.
Either way, people spend too much time paying attention to your form of lunacy. As I have here.
- David
By Viking Kaj, at
Tue Mar 20, 09:49:00 AM:
cf the internment and appropriation of the property of Japanese Americans during WWII, the imprisonment of German Americans during WWI for speaking the language and membership in fraternal organizations, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus for the hoosiers in the War between the States, and the tar and feathering of royalist sympathizers during the American Revolution.
This stuff has a long history in the US.
I often wondered what part of Lincoln Obama was reading after he won the election. I think we now know.
By W.LindsayWheeler, at
Tue Mar 20, 09:56:00 AM:
@David,
America is the seat of World Revolution. It is there by design. It is the flagship. That is why "Novus Ordo" appears on the back of the money. It is a progressive country. Progressive is nihilist. That is why its flag has not Christian symbols on it but Masonic.
I was raised to be a very patriotic American. I was. Research into what is a republic has changed me. I understand what is going on and I don't like it.
By , at
Tue Mar 20, 09:47:00 PM:
oh, now it's the Masons. Get real.
The VAST majority of Masons are practicing, believing Christians. Christian ideals underpin almost everything Masons are in this country.
And most of the coins and paper money I have say "In God we Trust" somwhere on them.
Those tricky Masons.
Wheeler, you're a buffoon.
-David
By Aegon01, at
Wed Mar 21, 09:33:00 AM:
Feed the trolls and what have you got? Fat trolls. Lets keep doing it.
Wheeler don't be stupid. Everyone knows we're actually being controlled by the Illuminati, who are taking orders from aliens that live on a ship behind the moon. Why do you think the government wanted to hide Area 51? It turns out they've actually grown the last 10 Presidents in vats there. That's why "the more things change, the more they stay the same." Meanwhile, our only protection against total societal collapse are all the Yale secret societies who control the banks and economies of the world. That's why they have the All-Seeing Eye on top of the pyramid, they're actually just looking out for us. Silly WLW.
By Gary Rosen, at
Wed Mar 21, 11:02:00 PM:
"Wheeler don't be stupid"
You've got a better chance with "Sun, rise in the West".
