Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Neo-con rag The Weekly Standard has one of the most ridiculous and intellectually dishonest screeds against the ACLU that you will ever read. They are mad as hell that the ACLU released that video of former Guantanamo inmates detailing their mistreatment and abuse. That video was "anti-American propaganda," says Thomas Joscelyn, after inventing yet another quasi-clever alternative ACLU acronym:
Al Qaeda's Civil Liberties Union
Oh, I get it! They took the same acronym and substituted other words for it, making it seem vaguely evil and threatening! That's so clever! Except, of course, it's not. It's old and hackneyed and was played out decades ago. Seriously, write some new material.
And now the real bullshit starts to flow:
The ACLU has worked diligently to undermine America's stance in what was formerly known as the "war on terror," and has even been willing to disseminate propaganda on behalf of our jihadist enemies.If you think this is hyperbole or an exaggeration, consider a video released by the ACLU earlier this month titled "Justice Denied: Voices from Guantanamo." As you would expect, the video portrays Gitmo in the worst possible light. But it goes well beyond any semblance of rational criticism. As Sahab, al Qaeda's media arm, could very well have produced it. The short video is pure anti-American propaganda, starring men who have dedicated their lives to the jihadist cause.
Joscelyn actually cites Bush administration memos summarizing the evidence against the men who appear in those videos, memos prepared for their combatant status review tribunal (CSRTs) held at Guantanamo Bay. He cites them as though every word in them was 100% factual, which, if true, leads directly to a very obvious question: Why did the Bush administration release all five of those men?
Moazzam Begg was released in 2005. Omar Deghayes was released in 2007. Bisher al-Rawi was released in 2007. Ruhal Ahmed and Shafiq Rasul were both released in 2004. All by the Bush administration. My goodness, if Joscelyn thinks the ACLU are a bunch of terror-loving commies out to destroy America, what must he think of the Bush administration for letting these dangerous terrorists walk free?
Of course, he simply ignores the fact that the evidence against many of the people at Gitmo has turned out to be virtually non-existent. Of the 33 detainees so far given fair trials, many of them before Republican-appointed judges, 28 of them have been deemed innocent - and those were the ones the Bush administration chose not to release, for crying out loud. Imagine how weak the evidence must have been against the ones they let go.
No fewer than five prosecutors at Gitmo, all highly decorated military officers, have resigned in protest of the total lack of not only due process but even concern over whether detainees were innocent or not. But Joscelyn apparently believes that citing allegations from the Bush administration -- allegations they themselves did not believe were credible -- is proof of guilt.
As usual, Glenn Greenwald absolutely nails the Weekly Standard for their hypocrisy in accusing the ACLU of anti-Americanism while displaying that trait themselves with such clarity:
So lame and desperate are Joscelyn's smears that his attack ends up indicting himself, his magazine and his political movement far more than his intended target. Here are the profoundly un-American "principles" he implicitly -- and at times explicitly -- embraces:1. If the Government asserts accusations against Muslims, those accusations shall be deemed true, even if they're made in secret and without being tested by any court.
2. Even if the Government voluntarily releases Muslim detainees from captivity without charges, they should still be assumed to be guilty, dangerous and evil Terrorists.
3. Muslim detainees have no right to counsel, no right to be charged with a crime, no due process rights to contest the accusations against them, and no right to be free of torture.
4. Anyone who works to provide basic due process and legal representation to Muslim detainees, or who publicizes their wrongful detentions and abusive treatment, shall themselves be deemed suspect of harboring allegiances to Al Qaeda.
To see how alien this is to any political values historically understood as "American," compare The Weekly Standard's neoconservative manifesto to what Thomas Paine thought about such matters, as expressed in the final paragraph of his 1790 Dissertations on First Principles of Government:
An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Or compare the neocon mentality to Thomas Jefferson's warning, in a 1789 letter to Paine, that trial by jury -- which the ACLU safeguards and most of America's Right despises -- is "the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
Between (a) an organization that works tirelessly for basic due process and Constitutional liberties for everyone and (b) a political movement which demands their rejection, does it really take any effort to see which side is vigorously defending core American principles and which side is waging war on them? And given how due-process-free imprisonment is one of the most potent recruiting tools for Islamic extremists (as reported by David Rohde, Johann Hari, Gen. McChyrstal, and even the Pentagon's own 2004 Task Force) -- to say nothing of the endless aggressive wars cheered on by The Weekly Standard's play-acting warriors -- does it take any effort to see who Al Qaeda's "useful idiots" and stalwart allies truly are?
Nope. Seems crystal clear to me.
Politics
Comments
Shouldn't the Weekly Standard be renamed the Week & Standardless?
Posted by: DGKnipfer | November 19, 2009 9:43 AM
The wierdest part is that the supposedly insulting title they've offered the ACLU is actually a strange sort of complement. The ACLU's greatest strength has always been its willingness to defend anyone (compare their client list with the ADF, for instance), so pointing out that they'll stand up for terrorists and insist that they get fair trials and aren't abused is pretty much just drawing our attention to why the ACLU is good.
Posted by: Awesome McCool | November 19, 2009 9:55 AM
Yeah, the ACLU's willingness to defend Neo-Nazis, the KKK and NAMBLA certainly sepask of an uncommon and extraordinary commitment to freedom of speech and the rule of law. I am not sure how common a reaction this is, but it makes me admire them enormously: the willingness to do what one knows is right, come what may, is a trait I have always admired.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | November 19, 2009 10:22 AM
Considering that the ACLU’s Director from 1932 to 1954 was KGB recruit Corliss Lamont, it should come as no surprise that organization would act in such an openly treasonous manner.
Posted by: Mike H | November 19, 2009 10:24 AM
Awesome,
The ACLU stands up for alleged terrorists. Damn good thing they do it seems.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 19, 2009 10:27 AM
Only in the warped minds of (some) conservatives does defending innocent people falsely accused amount to treason.
Posted by: Taz | November 19, 2009 10:27 AM
If you can't defend your enemies against injustice, how can you be trusted to defend your allies? -DJ
----------
PS Who said: "I don't support what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it" ?
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 10:36 AM
No man is above the law, nor is any institution.
That also means no man or institution is below the law either.
Mike H, Lamont never joined the CPUSA. He was, like a lot of people, sympathetic to the USSR, and unfortunately was less forthright about Stalin than he should have been. But it was an ongoing source of conflict at the time, and i the 50s he wrote a book called Why I am not a Communist which you might find enlightening.
Mike, if it is treason to demand that people get trials, that the US obey the laws we set, that we behave in a manner that conforms to our ideals, then I don't know what to say to you. You don't believe in democracy, in the whole modern project, in anything that resembles a system other than feudalism, maybe.
I'll leave you with a comment my wife made once. She said women judge men by their actions and their chosen friends.
The same applies to countries. If your friends are dictators, and your actions violate your espoused principles, why should anyone, anywhere in the world, believe a thing you say? I think no sane person from anywhere in the world would believe any US president who says we are committed to human rights, precisely because we have been so reluctant to criticize our best buddies (hello Saudi Arabia, Musharraf, Israel) when they behave in ways that we would never accept from enemies. Criticizing enemies is easy.
But you seem to think this kind of stuff is okay. I guess, in your world, might makes right. But remember, you won't always be mighty. And that is the moment when karma comes running back to your doorstep.
Posted by: Jesse | November 19, 2009 10:36 AM
Only in the warped minds of (some) conservatives do fundamentalist religion and atheist communism have any point of contact.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 19, 2009 10:40 AM
Mike H, Lamont never joined the CPUSA. He was, like a lot of people, sympathetic to the USSR, and unfortunately was less forthright about Stalin than he should have been. But it was an ongoing source of conflict at the time, and i the 50s he wrote a book called Why I am not a Communist which you might find enlightening. .
Working from of the archived files of KGB operative Alexander Vassiliev, Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes documented Lamont’s recruitment into the KGB in 1939.
The ACLU, fruit from the poisoned tree of treachery.
Posted by: Mike H | November 19, 2009 10:44 AM
Mike H.:
"Considering that the ACLU’s Director from 1932 to 1954 was KGB recruit Corliss Lamont, it should come as no surprise that organization would act in such an openly treasonous manner."
Considering that you're a fucking moron, it should come as no surprise that you would make an assertion that is both inaccurate on its face and nonsequitir.
Jesse said, to you:
"I'll leave you with a comment my wife made once. She said women judge men by their actions and their chosen friends."
I don't got no wife, Mikey, so I'll have to leave you with the comment that several of my ex-girlfriends have made:
"You are such an fucking asshole, why don't you just leave?!".
Posted by: democommie@prodigy.net | November 19, 2009 10:47 AM
Mike H, #4: Considering that the ACLU’s Director from 1932 to 1954 was KGB recruit Corliss Lamont, it should come as no surprise that organization would act in such an openly treasonous manner.
Interesting comment. Advocating the necessity of determining whether a person is actually guilty of a crime by an open examination of the evidence counts as "treason". I think that says more about the commenter than it does about the ACLU. And the claim that the alleged political affiliation of a director over half a century ago is relevant in determining whether present actions are "treason" adds even more to the picture one acquires of the commenter.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 19, 2009 10:52 AM
It would seem that some communist sympathizers can act in defense of democracy and the rule of law in ways True Americans(TM) cannot seem to grasp. Mike H, take a bow and leave.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 19, 2009 11:01 AM
Let's not get started on other politicians of the early 1950's, and of the undermining they did of our government and society by accusing good citizens of being (gasp!) Commies. One of those foul bastards even got elected President in 1968, IIRC....
Posted by: Coragyps | November 19, 2009 11:02 AM
DingoJack asked:
I don't know, but it's pretty close to the famous quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," which is usually attributed to Voltaire. It's perhaps more correctly attributed to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who wrote it in a biography about Voltaire. But then you have to go through the rigmarole of explaining who Evelyn Beatrice Hall is.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 19, 2009 11:04 AM
Ya know, I bet you just made that up, out of thin air. I bet you can't substantiate that with an unimpeachable source and that anything you come up with will be crap.
And you DID know the US were close allies with the USSR during the 1940s, right?
Posted by: gwangung | November 19, 2009 11:14 AM
Mike H:
Explain what part of the ACLU's actions are treasonous and why or go away. If you can't do that, there's no reason anyone should pay attention to your whinging.
Posted by: Dan L. | November 19, 2009 11:52 AM
Mike H -
What is your definition of 'openly treasonous'? Opposing the government in a court of law?
Am I being openly treasonous if I go to court to fight a parking ticket? How about if I petition to change one of our laws?
Posted by: Michael | November 19, 2009 11:55 AM
I don't got no wife, Mikey, so I'll have to leave you with the comment that several of my ex-girlfriends have made:
"You are such an fucking asshole, why don't you just leave?!".
It would appear that they were excellent judges of character in this regard.
Ya know, I bet you just made that up, out of thin air. I bet you can't substantiate that with an unimpeachable source and that anything you come up with will be crap.
Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America by Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes, its all right there.
And you DID know the US were close allies with the USSR during the 1940s, right?
Did YOU know that Mr. civil libertarian Corlis Lamont was very vocal in his support for Stalin’s purge trials as well as the prosecution of Trotskyites under the Smith Act? And DID you also know that 1939 is not the “40’s” and in the 40’s the Soviet Union operated its largest and most deeply embedded espionage operation in the United States? They were allies of convenience and very poor ones at that.
Posted by: Mike H | November 19, 2009 11:59 AM
Mike H, #19: Did YOU know that Mr. civil libertarian Corlis Lamont was very vocal in his support for Stalin’s purge trials as well as the prosecution of Trotskyites under the Smith Act?
And did you know that Lamont is no longer director of the ACLU and so is not relevant as to whether the ACLU is a treasonous organization? Or that even if he were still director, that would have no bearing on whether or not it is treasonous to want the evidence of a crime allegedly committed by a Muslim examined openly before that Muslim suffers for the alleged crime?
Or are you arguing about something else entirely? It's not clear that you understand the difference, so a clarification might be in order.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 19, 2009 12:11 PM
Explain what part of the ACLU's actions are treasonous and why or go away. If you can't do that, there's no reason anyone should pay attention to your whinging.
These individuals are sworn enemies of the United States and its people and as they are not citizens, are not entitled to constitutional protections. An action designed to do absolutely nothing to further justice while simultaneously damaging the national security of the country is treasonous. There’s a difference between zealous advocacy and willingly and enthusiastically being used as a tool by the enemy.
Most information and evidence against these people, while quite robust, would never be considered admissible under the constitution as there are no crime scene investigators out in Afghanistan picking up shells and no one at the NSA needs a warrant to intercept a satellite phone call in Pakistan.
And don’t even get me started on these ACLU scumbags showing classified photographs of CIA agents to the detainees …. that’s enough right there to have them face a firing squad.
Posted by: Mike H | November 19, 2009 12:12 PM
Mike H-
How do you know 'these individuals are sworn enemies of the United States and its people'? Did they sign a sworn affidavit, before they started being tort..er, enhancedly interrogated? Is it because they are not citizens, and therefore we don't need to afford them human rights? Do you think all non-U.S. citizens should be given sub-human status in our legal system?
Posted by: Michael | November 19, 2009 12:27 PM
And the reference Mike H likes so much has been critically reviewed by some heavyweights and that book found wanting, e.g. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/guttenplan
There are some who seem to think that Paine and Jefferson wrote those words down cavalierly; neither would likely have wanted people to heed them because of the source or authority. They are to be listed to because they effectively are the actual principles the USA was actually founded upon and, in the best of times, venerated - but only when those principles are followed in law and action.
Posted by: criswell | November 19, 2009 12:35 PM
Abby - Thanks. But who the fuck is Evelyn Beatrice Hall?
Mike H - "These individuals are sworn enemies of the United States and its people and as they are not citizens, are not entitled to constitutional protections." Firstly are they sworn enemies of the US? How do you know this? How can you prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that they aren't a taxi driver or a tourist? Secondly although not citizen of the US, they are protected by various international conventions signed by the US, including the 1923 Geneva Convention, under which they are definitely covered, try again.
" An action designed to do absolutely nothing to further justice while simultaneously damaging the national security of the country is treasonous." Firstly, how can you prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the ACLU actions are not 'furthering justice' and/or treasonous? evidence please.
"Most information and evidence against these people, while quite robust, would never be considered admissible under the constitution as there are no crime scene investigators out in Afghanistan picking up shells and no one at the NSA needs a warrant to intercept a satellite phone call in Pakistan." Firstly, how can you prove (beyond reasonable doubt) the assertion that the evidence is 'robust'? Against what standard and laws are they 'robust'? If it's not admissible under the constitution, how is that a problem (since, according to your 'sources' they are not covered by the constitution anyway, or so you claim)? Could it be since the prisoners are clearly covered under international law? If the US doesn't follow the law, why should anyone think that US personnel are anything more than outlaws, and treat them accordingly? As to "Showing suspects 'classified' photos of US operatives", you have an unimpeachable source, right? Citations please.
Your case is far from proven (except in your own fevered imagination) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 12:52 PM
OT, but this is freaking hilarious : "The geniuses who wrote Texas’ gay marriage ban may have accidentally banned all marriage in the state, according to one Houston lawyer. Subsection B of the ban, a constitutional amendment ratified in 2005, states, “This state…may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”"
http://www.newser.com/story/74400/texas-accidentally-bans-straight-marriage.html
Posted by: BdN | November 19, 2009 1:06 PM
BdN
Sounds like the result of another mail-order law school grad ala Orly Taitz.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 19, 2009 1:25 PM
"...and as they are not citizens, are not entitled to constitutional protections."
This is just, plain false. U.S. Constitutional protections on individual human rights apply both to citizens and non-citizens. Certain rights are reserved for citizens (voting, for example). These rights are explicitly outlined in the document itself.
Posted by: Doug | November 19, 2009 1:32 PM
Mike H, I hereby declare you a terrorist.
As you believe that any demand for evidence in support of accusations of terrorism is an act of treason, you will of course make no effort whatsoever to dispute this. The very fact that the accusation has been made is enough, in your mind, to brand the accused as guilty in every other case, so why should it be different when YOU are the one accused? All it takes is one person to declare you a terrorist, and POOF, you're magically a terrorist!
So since you're obviously a sworn enemy of this nation, please fucking kill yourself.
Unless of course you're a lying sack of shit without the slightest comprehension of justice or logic.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 19, 2009 1:33 PM
Not to belabor the point, but here's the part of the constitution that guarantees the legal rights of non-citizens (Amendment 14, Section 1):
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Notice that states are not allowed the deprive any PERSON (not citizen) within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law. The choice of wording was quite deliberate.
Posted by: Doug | November 19, 2009 1:42 PM
The irony is, Mike H's comments are the best argument possible for the ACLU. The fact that there are so many who think like him, with a cavalier disregard for human rights, advocacy of torture, and ready accusations of treason, makes it apparent that the ACLU is a necessity.
You've convinced me, Mike. I'm joining immediately.
Posted by: Taz | November 19, 2009 2:09 PM
Mike H, I'd like to thank you. For further encouraging me to become a card-carrying member of the ACLU. You are an ignorant spork.
Posted by: JustaTech | November 19, 2009 2:20 PM
taz, mikeH doesn't actually think - it's a gut reaction that goes like this: "those people don't look like me, and those over there think, unlike me, so they are all bad."
in his world, rights and fair treatment should be reserved for good folks like himself.
Posted by: dean | November 19, 2009 2:21 PM
I have it on good authority (namely, I just pulled it out of my ass) that Mike H is in fact a terrorist.
Now, in accordance with his own arguments, since he's been accused of terrorism any argument or evidence he advances in his own defense is treasonous. When do we convene the firing squad?
Posted by: Craig | November 19, 2009 2:29 PM
--from Greenwald's final paragraph
The hatred that these people display is focused on some of the grandest, most liberating ideas relating to political and social justice ever to spring from the human mind. These ideas are given form and function in the Constitution and within the body of law. They have proven to be so useful and effective that they are mirrored more and more throughout the world. This hatred is a particularly virulent kind; it is hatred of freedom, of fairness and of self.
I know from experience that many of the reactionary, religious right harbor a deep mistrust of our basic human nature and seek to subsume it in ritual faith, religious or political or, worse, both. Still, it is chilling to see this self-hatred projected so widely and so shrilly in the public square. (Notwithstanding that the public square is precisely the right venue--squarely in public view.)
It is likely that their hatred is in direct proportion to their fear. Over the course of the last century they have lost so many convenient targets: black people, voting women, voting black people, demon alcohol, interracial marriage. These last decades have seen the trend continue as rights are explicitly extended to those who have endured violations of their basic human rights imposed by the tacit acceptance of far right bigotry. Now the rabid right is desperate for new targets and Muslim Terrorists have come along at just the right time. The right has made ugly, terrorist rag dolls that they shake in the face of civilization while raising a screeching howl and ringing every alarm bell they can appropriate.
In their head long plunge into frantic insecurity (again, yet, still; it seems to be a way of life for some) they trample the very "blessings of liberty" that allow them to be the right wing, bigot scaremongers that they are. What they will continue to fail to hear or heed is that when the rights of one are trampled the rights of all are in jeopardy.
Joscelyn and those he represents are not good Americans concerned with the welfare of their country and the world in general. They are strictly on the look out for themselves and their tired old dogmas to the exception of all else. In my opinion they are also not good humans.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 19, 2009 2:40 PM
I hope MikeH is consistent and believes Cheney should also be sent forthwith to his firing-squad doom. After all, let's not forget who outed a CIA agent (along with Scooter Libby etc).
Posted by: Dave | November 19, 2009 2:46 PM
No need for a firing squad. I think we need to verify these charges by forcibly escorting Mike H to GTMO and sprinkling some water on his face until he either admits to the charges or drowns.
/sarcasm
Man, that paragraph was just so wrong.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | November 19, 2009 2:46 PM
Thanks for nothing, Mike H. Because of you, I just made a $200 non-deductible donation to the ACLU. That is $200 I really can't afford at this time. Ouch. You suck.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 19, 2009 2:59 PM
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey:
WTF are we gonna do when confronted with a tottering intellect like yours?
Corliss Lamont was a director of the ACLU, not THE director of the ACLU.
You, otoh, are not a fucking moron on this thread, you are THE fucking moron on this comment thread.
You do absolutely scare me to death, btw and I'll be crying myself to sleep for the next several weeks after being brutalized by you, you bigoted brute, you!
Oh, I'm just kidding, you're a silly fuck who's probably gotten all red in the face just reading the comments on this thread. There are two ways to avoid that sort of thing. The first is that you, STFU, go away, educate yourself and return with some genuine argument. The second is that you STFU and go away. Either way works for me.
Posted by: democommie | November 19, 2009 3:02 PM
Having just now read the rest of the thread it seems apparent that Mike H. is scared spitless too.
Pity, that. If there was universal respect for "the blessings of liberty" he would have nothing to fear since no one would be deprived of personal and communal security. Not that security is guaranteed; what is provided is a level playing field in which free people aren't rewarded for infringing on each others' security. Sort of an agreement we all make with each other. Speaking in terms of the American ideal, that is. Nothing's perfect but, hey. Things get better with practice.
Surely he has at least heard of the idea . . .
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 19, 2009 3:13 PM
I find these arguments about old communists amusing. There were lots and lots of American intellectuals who were taken in by Soviet communism in the 20s, 30s and 40s. Most of them ended up repudiating their pro-Soviet views at some point. Some of them, like Whittaker Chambers and Leo Strauss, became conservatives; others, like Roger Baldwin (founder of the ACLU) became liberals. But wingnuts only hold that past against those who became liberals, not those who became conservatives. Because they still confuse liberalism with communism and socialism and can't make rational distinctions between them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 19, 2009 3:23 PM
I see the kneejerk fuckbag Mike H hasn't returned. Must be too afraid to stand up to evidence and logic.
Posted by: Katharine | November 19, 2009 3:44 PM
Having read the Mitrokhin Archive (that must-read compilation of KGB documents that exposed "Granny Spy" Melita Norwood), I can say it is indeed possible that Lamont was "recruited" by the KGB (I'll check the index tonight). I can also say that in this issue, "recruited" can mean a wide variety of things, from the seriously damaging and illegal (Fuchs, the Cambridge Five) to the laughably superfluous and redundant, such as CPUSA founder Gus Hall, or a handful of leftie MPs asking certain arch and well-timed questions during Question Time.
Seriously, a lot of the people "recruited" or otherwise contacted by the KGB didn't do squat to justify the KGB's trouble, either because they weren't in a position to give them any real help, or because (like Martin Luther King) they proved unwilling to subordinate their cause to that of the KGB.
Also, let's face it: back then, a lot of right-wingers just flat-out lied about their enemies' alleged Communist connections; and so did a lot of Soviet defectors looking to make themselves marketable to US intelligence. Remember a guy named Sudoplatov? He alleged that ALL of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project were spies.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 19, 2009 3:45 PM
I am going to indulge in a very guilty pleasure:
Mike_H, why do you hate America? If you hate the rule of law so much, please seek refuge in a backwater more amenable to theocracy and militarism married to an arbitrary and authoritarian tyrant.
Please go to Saudi Arabia. And take your partisan and ideological fellow-travellers with you. If you hate modernity, go live with the premoderns.
Posted by: Chuck | November 19, 2009 3:57 PM
Here's another complication in figuring out who was or was not a Soviet spy: sometimes the more paranoid spy-catchers, like Peter Wright of MI-5, simply assumed that everyone seen acting friendly with a suspected spy were, ipso facto, themselves spies, knowingly participating in a "ring." So if a spy chats up certain employees at a hotel, and gets them talking about a guest he's watching for the KGB, all of the said employees are then considered a "spy ring," even though they had no idea who their friend was working for, and no intent to spy for anyone.
Oh, and unless Mike H can show actual illegal activity on Lamont's part, something seriously damaging to legitimate US interests, then the "KGB recruit" allegation is, at best, completely irrelevant.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 19, 2009 4:05 PM
Listen, if you panty waists want to work yourselves up in a lather justifying the administrations treatment of “alleged” 9-11 mastermind KSM be my guest, but most people think it’s an entirely unjustifiable position. Lindsey Graham, certainly not my favorite of the Senate Republicans absolutely positively fucking destroys Holder and the administration’s rationale to try KSM and his cronies here in the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4&feature=player_embedded
I find these arguments about old communists amusing. There were lots and lots of American intellectuals who were taken in by Soviet communism in the 20s, 30s and 40s. Most of them ended up repudiating their pro-Soviet views at some point.
The few who did repudiate their allegiances to Stalin, and lets call it for what it was an allegiance to Stalinism, did so when it no longer mattered and they never faced the same social and professional stigma that fascists carried with them for the rest of their lives.
I can also say that in this issue, "recruited" can mean a wide variety of things, from the seriously damaging and illegal (Fuchs, the Cambridge Five) to the laughably superfluous and redundant, such as CPUSA founder Gus Hall, or a handful of leftie MPs asking certain arch and well-timed questions during Question Time.
Lamont was only recruited, according to the sources he was never used for anything. Gus Hall on the other hand not only signed yearly reciepts for Soviet subsides to the CPUSA, but also acted as a liaison and “talent scout” for his KGB control officer’s recruitment efforts in the US.
Seriously, a lot of the people "recruited" or otherwise contacted by the KGB didn't do squat to justify the KGB's trouble, either because they weren't in a position to give them any real help, or because (like Martin Luther King) they proved unwilling to subordinate their cause to that of the KGB.
King had nothing to do with the KGB, and they actively (along with the Kennedy and Johnson administrations) worked against his efforts while he was alive. However, its not the point that the KGB didn’t use many of their recruits, it’s the mere fact that “good progressive types” would actively and knowingly collaborate with a hostile and totalitarian regime responsible for some of the most brutal and widespread crimes against humanity, good progressives like Corliss Lamont, speaks volumes to their character and commitment to their professed beliefs.
Posted by: Mike H | November 19, 2009 4:18 PM
Mike H, why should we believe a word you say? We already know you're a terrorist.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 19, 2009 4:24 PM
Mike H urges us to support the violation of the U.S. Constitution, and he calls others treasonous?
Mike H, why do you hate the Bill of Rights so much?
Posted by: James Hanley | November 19, 2009 4:34 PM
The few who did repudiate their allegiances to Stalin, and lets call it for what it was an allegiance to Stalinism...
Once again, Mike H, shows his total ignorance of history. Many of the people who spied for the USSR had no allegiance at all to Stalin or Leninist forms of government. The Cambridge Five, for example, were motivated by nothing less than the desire to fight fascism, had no respect for Stalin's domestic policies, and had no intent or desire to create Stalinist regimes in their own country. And yes, many "collaborators" broke with the Soviet regime as soon as they heard of Stalin's atrocities. In fact, by 1968, the ENTIRE WESTERN LEFT was done with the Soviets.
(Philby, and possibly others, went on strike when Stalin signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and ended his strike only when Hitler violated the pact.)
However, its not the point that the KGB didn’t use many of their recruits, it’s the mere fact that “good progressive types” would actively and knowingly collaborate with a hostile and totalitarian regime...
If the KGB didn't "use" a recruit, then, by definition, that recruit did not "collaborate" with the Soviet regime. Look it up in a dictionary, if you can read at all: "collaboration" means DOING SOMETHING in cooperation with whoever you're collaborating with; no doing, no collaboration.
Lamont was only recruited, according to the sources he was never used for anything.
Thank you for admitting that your accusation is completely bogus and irrelevant. Now go back to bed.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 19, 2009 4:50 PM
"King had nothing to do with the KGB, and they actively (along with J.Edgar Hoover during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations) worked against his efforts while he was alive."
There, numbnuts, fixed that for ya.
Posted by: democommie | November 19, 2009 4:52 PM
The current right-wing yelping over trying KSM in New York is a prime example of their brain-dead hypocrisy. If the decision had come during the Bush administration they wouldn't have said a thing about it. Their paranoid complaints have nothing to do with the decision, only whose administration made it. Here's Guiliani completely contradicting himself regarding the trials of KSM and Moussaoui. But hey, if Fox News and talk radio say to get upset, the conservative sheeple must obey.
Posted by: Taz | November 19, 2009 5:04 PM
Mike H., #45: Listen, if you panty waists want to work yourselves up in a lather justifying the administrations treatment of “alleged” 9-11 mastermind KSM be my guest, but most people think it’s an entirely unjustifiable position.
You just don't get it, do you? Until the evidence has been examined in an open court (or at least as open as legitimate intelligence concerns allow -- legitimate meaning protecting intelligence gathering capabilities, not protecting officials who screwed up) we cannot be certain that the person is actually guilty of the crimes he's accused of.
Please, Mike. I really am short this month. I truly cannot afford yet another $200 donation to the ACLU.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 19, 2009 5:12 PM
Re Mike H
Mr. Mike H is an interesting fellow. First he smears the ACLU in comment #4 because a former director, one Corliss Lamont, was allegedly recruited by the KGB for some purpose which he fails to define. Then, in comment #45, he admits that Lamont never did anything. Thus, an unbiased observed would conclude that the guilt by association smear against the ACLU is so much hogwash.
I also find Mr. Mike Hs' concern for Trotskyites rather touching. Of course, they included such current conservative luminaries as Irving Kristol and David Horowitz which may explain why Mr. Mike H is all bent out of shape over it.
Mr. Mike Hs' labeling of ACLU activists as traitors who should be taken out and shot is also quite fine. I can only assume that he feels the same way about Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby who outed a CIA agent, Valery Plane for the purpose of attempting to discredit her husband, who accurately found that the Bush administration charges of nuclear weapons components in Africa was so much tuna fish. Unfortunately, we can't take their shill, Bob Novak out to be shot as he has already gone to meet Satan in hell.
Posted by: SLC | November 19, 2009 5:16 PM
Once again, Mike H, shows his total ignorance of history. Many of the people who spied for the USSR had no allegiance at all to Stalin or Leninist forms of government. The Cambridge Five, for example, were motivated by nothing less than the desire to fight fascism, had no respect for Stalin's domestic policies, and had no intent or desire to create Stalinist regimes in their own country.
Dedicated to fighting fascism ..... LMFAO!!! that’s rich! The reason why the Soviets had such good success in penetrating the West in the 30’s and 40’s was because so many were willing to work for them on ideological grounds. It also explains why Philby, McClean and Burgess fled to Moscow in 1951 to live out their lives in the warm proletarian paradise that their hero Stalin had created.
And yes, many "collaborators" broke with the Soviet regime as soon as they heard of Stalin's atrocities. In fact, by 1968, the ENTIRE WESTERN LEFT was done with the Soviets.
You mean in the early 1930’s when stories of Stalin’s atrocities first became widely known …you know Holdomor, slave labor camps, the purges. No they took another 20 years to make their “courageous” break with Stalinism.
(Philby, and possibly others, went on strike when Stalin signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and ended his strike only when Hitler violated the pact.)
Bullshit. Philby sheepishly questions his handler but never stopped working for the Soviets.
If the KGB didn't "use" a recruit, then, by definition, that recruit did not "collaborate" with the Soviet regime. Look it up in a dictionary, if you can read at all: "collaboration" means DOING SOMETHING in cooperation with whoever you're collaborating with; no doing, no collaboration.
Lets see, they met with individuals they knew to be covert agents for a totalitarian and hostile foreign regime and conspired with these individuals to perform covert tasks for them … that’s a pretty good definition of collaboration to me. Its like the kid who gets recruited to play football for UCLA but rides the bench for all four years ..... don’t tell me he wasn’t on the team.
Thank you for admitting that your accusation is completely bogus and irrelevant. Now go back to bed.
And thank you for admitting that denialism, of another sort, is still alive and well in the “reality based community”.
Posted by: Mike H | November 19, 2009 5:25 PM
Mike H,
You didn't answer my question. Why do you hate the Bill of Rights so much?
Posted by: James Hanley | November 19, 2009 5:37 PM
Lets see, they met with individuals they knew to be covert agents for a totalitarian and hostile foreign regime and conspired with these individuals to perform covert tasks for them...
Let's see, first you admit that many of the people you call "collaborators" didn't really do anything (including the guy you first accused); but now -- when you suddenly realize you've undercut your own argument -- you change your mind and say they did stuff, only you can't specify what they did, or whether it was pro-Soviet or just anti-Nazi.
And thank you for admitting that denialism, of another sort, is still alive and well in the “reality based community”.
Excuse me, but YOU'RE the one who just admitted that Lamont didn't actually do anything for the USSR. So who's the "denialist" again?
Mike's name-calling is lapsing into tantrum-grade incoherence. It's past his bedtime.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 19, 2009 5:39 PM
James, obviously Mike H hates the Bill of Rights so much because he's a terrorist.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 19, 2009 5:49 PM
Let's see, first you admit that many of the people you call "collaborators" didn't really do anything
Except willing engage in a relationship with covert NKVD agents and offered their services to them … child’s play really… I mean, haven’t we all done something like that in our lives?
you change your mind and say they did stuff, only you can't specify what they did, or whether it was pro-Soviet or just anti-Nazi.
Are you talking about the Cambridge five? Put the pipe you are rambling.
Excuse me, but YOU'RE the one who just admitted that Lamont didn't actually do anything for the USSR. So who's the "denialist" again?
And you evidently see nothing wrong with people like Lamont agreeing to covertly work for the most brutal and totalitarian regime of the 20th century well after he knew of the kinds of monstrous inhumanities they were capable of. Who gives a shit if their handlers never found work for them, the fact that they would be willing to help them permanently stains them.
Posted by: Mike H | November 19, 2009 5:49 PM
Re Mike H
And you evidently see nothing wrong with people like Lamont agreeing to covertly work for the most brutal and totalitarian regime of the 20th century well after he knew of the kinds of monstrous inhumanities they were capable of.
Gee, worse then Hitler. Most people consider Nazi Germany to be the most brutal and totalitarian regime of the 20th century, although the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia certainly gives them a run for their money. I suspect that Mr. Mike H thinks that the USA and Great Britain should have backed Hitler instead of Stalin. Or perhaps, to be a little more charitable, he agrees with Pat Buchanan that Britain and France should have stayed out of it and let Hitler and Stalin knock each other off.
Posted by: SLC | November 19, 2009 6:00 PM
And you evidently see nothing wrong with people like Lamont agreeing to covertly work for the most brutal and totalitarian regime...
Give it up, little man, you've already admitted Lamont didn't do anything. No actions, no guilt, no relevance. "Agreeing to covertly work" doesn't mean shit if no work was ever done.
(And don't even think of trying to lecture me about Kim Philby. I've read books about him and the rest of the Five by Philip Knightley, Peter Wright, Genrikh Borovik, Yuri Modin, Philby himself, Ruffina Philby (last wife of), Miranda Carter, and of course the Mitrokhin Archive (both volumes), some bits of a history of MI-6, and probably others I can't remember right now. And your dumbass accusations show no sign of any understanding of the Five or their times.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 19, 2009 6:01 PM
Come on Mike, you damned terrorist, answer the question! Why do you hate the Bill of Rights so goddamed much?! You hate due process. You hate the rule of law. You hate due process (5th Amendment), you hate giving the accused criminal a trial (6th Amendment), and for good measure you would deny constitutional protections to non-citizens (14th Amendment).
You're an anti-American liberty-hating pro-government fuckjob, Mike.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 19, 2009 6:02 PM
I know facts are always bothersome but if anybody was recruited into or by the KGB in 1939 it was a time travel miracle since the KGB didn't exist until 1954. There were other, similar institutions since 1917 so maybe somebody has misspoken.
Posted by: FormerComposer | November 19, 2009 6:07 PM
Give it up, little man, you've already admitted Lamont didn't do anything. No actions, no guilt, no relevance. "Agreeing to covertly work" doesn't mean shit if no work was ever done.
Put the shovel bitches!
The action was agreeing to work for an agent of most brutal and inhumane leader of the 20th century and keep this relationship hidden. In criminal law its called a “conspiracy”.
(And don't even think of trying to lecture me about Kim Philby. I've read books about him and the rest of the Five by Philip Knightley, Peter Wright, Genrikh Borovik, Yuri Modin, Philby himself, Ruffina Philby (last wife of), Miranda Carter, and of course the Mitrokhin Archive (both volumes), some bits of a history of MI-6, and probably others I can't remember right now. And your dumbass accusations show no sign of any understanding of the Five or their times.)
Kim Philby was a Stalinist prick and no hagiography of the man will erase that. Your claim that he “went on strike” after the pact was written is an out and out lie and you got called on it.
Their “times” were marked by people so blinded to a utopian dream (or just people who were glitzed up totalitarian thugs) that the “dream” justified any means .. like Hobspawn agreeing that 20million dead in the gulag was an acceptable price to pay for the success of the Soviet proletarian dream.
Posted by: Mike H | November 19, 2009 6:12 PM
Taz @ 50 wrote:
Actually there's hypocrisy on both sides. Here's Ross Douthat exposing Sen. Schumer's: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/ksms-day-in-court/
In addition, I think this Pat Buchanan column speaks to my concerns about doing a trial there: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34453
I used the word "concerns" precisely since I'm on the fence. AG Holder completely failed to convince me though some links at Andrew Sullivan provided some good arguments for criminal court except they avoided Buchanan's concerns, which again, are the concerns I share.
I don't think this is the slam dunk lay-up decision like it's framed by the Democrats. I sincerely hope they've game-planned this out. I don't think a successful conviction, sentencing, and appeals will help Obama, but a failure in these areas could be devastating to his Presidency. Their argument that all previous trials led to a successful conclusion completely avoids the fact how Bush illegally detained him and tortured him.
The AG also claims they have a law where they can detain him indefinitely regardless of the outcome of a trial or appeals, however that assumes nothing at the trial changes the playing field regarding how Bush mistreated him.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 19, 2009 6:13 PM
I know facts are always bothersome but if anybody was recruited into or by the KGB in 1939 it was a time travel miracle since the KGB didn't exist until 1954. There were other, similar institutions since 1917 so maybe somebody has misspoken.
The Soviet intelligence agencies have gone through so many names, most scholars refer to it as simply the KGB during most of its time frame.
Posted by: mike h | November 19, 2009 6:14 PM
I suspect that Mr. Mike H thinks that the USA and Great Britain should have backed Hitler instead of Stalin.
An incredibly stupid idea: once Hitler got control of Russia's resources, and no longer had the Red Army tying his armies down, he would have been unstoppable, and no one would have been able to hold him to his word.
Or perhaps, to be a little more charitable, he agrees with Pat Buchanan that Britain and France should have stayed out of it and let Hitler and Stalin knock each other off.
...in a protracted war that would have destroyed ALL OF EUROPE, and killed tens of millions more than WW-II did (including all of Europe's Jews). Accusing someone of advocating that sort of genocide is not my idea of "charity."
My guess is, he's just another commie-hater who still can't bring himself to admit he's on the wrong side of WW-II, and those evil commie libruls like FDR that he's been conditined to hate were on the right side.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 19, 2009 6:16 PM
In criminal law its called a “conspiracy”.
In criminal law, if no crimes were actually committed, then there was no prosecutable "conspiracy."
Put the shovel bitches!
Yeah, Mike's tired and having a tanty. Time to turn off the lights and let him cry himself to sleep.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 19, 2009 6:24 PM
The Soviet intelligence agencies have gone through so many names, most scholars refer to it as simply the KGB during most of its time frame.
Um, no, most scholars don't. That's what "scholarship" means: getting the facts right.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 19, 2009 6:26 PM
I wonder, Mike H., how many average Americans in the thirties and forties had a sound understanding of events in Russia. I even wonder how much of Stalin's personal actions were broadly known and understood by the average American. I suspect such knowledge, in depth understanding of facts and motivation on the part of Stalin and his government, was not something that the average American was conversant in.
Recruiters for the Communist Party, like recruiters for all political causes, are free to misrepresent or to be completely ignorant of the motivations of those figureheads they champion. You see it every day. Scientologists, homeopaths, perpetual motion inventors, Republicans, Democrats, Catholics, conspiracy advocates; the list goes on and on.
Shoot. I was given false information when recruited by the damned Cub Scouts!!
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 19, 2009 6:28 PM
Raging Bee, #67: Um, no, most scholars don't. That's what "scholarship" means: getting the facts right.
I'm guessing that Mike H thinks that "scholarship" means bellowing inane talking points on talk radio.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 19, 2009 6:44 PM
Re Raging Bee
By charity, I meant that Mr. Mike H was not pro-Nazi, as my first alternative would imply, a quite charitable assumption given his rabid anti-communist sentiments.
By the way, despite Mr. Buchanan being a right wing fascist goat fucker, his thesis is not off the wall. There is certainly the possibility the Hitler and Stalin might have knocked each other off, thus sparing the US, Britain, and France from millions of causalities. Certainly, the French would have gladly forgone the occupation of their country, the British would have gladly forgone the blitz, and the US would have gladly forgone some 1/2 million battlefield deaths.
However, what Mr. Buchanan forgets is that there are two other possible scenarios, both of which would have been worse then what occurred. IMHO, the most likely scenario was a German invasion of the former Soviet Union in 1940 and victory in that year (the German army came uncomfortably close to winning as it was; if the divisions allocated to the conquest of Greece and Yugoslavia and the activities in Northern Africa had been available for Operation Barbarossa, would very likely have succeeded). Then, in 1941, Germany would have demanded that France turn over Alsace and Lorainne to Germany which almost certainly led to a war between Britain and France vs Germany. I see no reason to think that such an eventuality would have ended differently then what happened in 1940. Thus, the US and Great Britain would have been facing Germany alone with the US having to allocate much of its military power against Japan. Of course, if Stalin had won, Britain, France, and the US would have ending up facing the Red Army on the Rhine.
Posted by: SLC | November 19, 2009 6:47 PM
I'm no historian, and have only an average understanding of WWII, but going along with the assumption of Hitler leaving England, France, Greece, etc., alone and staging a successful invasion of Russia....
Yes, Russia has vast resources, but just how well could Germany have accessed those resources? Was there enough surplus German labor to transport up there to do all the work? Or is there an assumption that Russian civilians would have happily gone to work producing with all their might for the third reich?
And how much more manpower could Germany really have thrown at the U.S. and England after successfully invading Russia? As we recently rediscovered in Iraq, holding territory requires a shitload of boots on the ground, too.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't intend these questions as an attack on Raging Bee and SLC, but I get the impression that there's an assumption that a defeated Russia would have quietly remained defeated, and would not have given the German military continuous trouble. If that assumption isn't there, then I don't see how a successful invasion of Russia would actually strengthen Germany, rather than hinder it when it turned its attention elsewhere.
After all, successfully defeating Saddam Hussein and his armies hasn't exactly made it possible for us to turn more manpower, etc., to Afghanistan.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 19, 2009 7:07 PM
Re James Hanley
I suspect that Hitler would have put a puppet regime in charge in Russia. His plan would have been to exploit Russian resources by use of Slavic slave labor. Certainly, there would have been guerrilla opposition, just as there was in France but his forces would have crushed the opposition much like Hafaz Assad crushed the opposition in Syria in 1982, an event famously labeled Hama Rules by columnist Tom Friedman. By comparison, the Israeli Operation Cast Lead in Gaza and the US invasion of Iraq look like Casper Milquetoast operations. Hitler considered the Slavic peoples to be sub-humans, no better then animals and no quarter would have been given. If he though it necessary, all those not enslaved would have been terminated with extreme prejudice.
As to possible German deployments against Britain and the US, assuming that France would go down in 1941 as it did in 1940, with no Soviet Union at his back, and the US with one hand engaged by Japan, I don't see anything like Operation Overload succeeding in 1944 or at any other time.
Posted by: SLC | November 19, 2009 7:23 PM
Regrettably, I won't be able to continue this discussion, so here's my last comment, ripe for plucking and with no chance for me to reply. ;)
Wouldn't "crushing" the opposition require large numbers of military forces? And how sure are you it would actually have worked? I remember, iirc, in Tuchman's Guns of August, the Germans were shocked at how ineffective massive reprisals were in Belgium in WWI. Granted those massive reprisals weren't on the order of Assad's destruction of the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama, but that worked because so many of those who actively supported the Brotherhood were wiped out. When occupying a foreign land, it's damned hard to wipe out all those who support the resistance. And if you do, who works the mines and factories?
I'll grant Operation Overlord not happening in '44, on the assumption that some marginally lesser number of troops would have had to be left in Russia, compared to the number involved in the invasion. But aren't we then talking '45 or '46? We're not talking 1950 or beyond, certainly?
I'll be interested to see your response, even if I can't check back until this thread is effectively dead.
JH
Posted by: James Hanley | November 19, 2009 7:47 PM
Re James Hanley
It must be remembered that Hitler assembled over 100 divisions, which to be fair, included a number from Hungary and Romania who were his not so eager collaborators and which were certainly not up to the fighting level of the Wehrmacht. However, after a defeat of the Soviet Union and the mass murder of Russian Slavs, he certainly would not have required anything like that number to occupy all of the former Soviet Union west of the Ural Mountains, which was the aim of operation Barbarossa. It should also be pointed out that the numbers would have been significantly enhanced absent the side shows in Greece, Yugoslavia, and North Africa. With the former Soviet Union out of the picture, it is also not clear that the US could have afforded the luxury of using most of its naval strength against Japan, which would have greatly increased the difficulty of defeating that nation. One of the things that has always intrigued me is the facile dismissal of Japan as a significant military threat. In fact, Japan was a very formidable threat, especially early in the war, due to their superior carrier aircraft and torpedoes.
Posted by: SLC | November 19, 2009 8:24 PM
Firstly Mike H,
"ARE YOU NOW, OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN, A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY?"
Secondly,
You're make lots of claims here but I see no evidence. Can you provide either extraordinary evidence or citations to extraordinary evidence (from creditable primary sources, of course) that can back your extraordinary claims?
And finally,
I've seen no answers to the questions asked in comment #24, so I'll take it as read that the general answer is 'No, I've got nothing at all to go on, just a knot of fear in my guts, a bunch of right-wing talking points, and not much knowledge about anything'.
------------------------------------
For all those armchair counter-factual historians -
1. Germany's military machine was highly inefficient. The Soviets had placed their factories over the Urals and were cranking out weapons at a huge rate.
2. The Germans antagonised the locals, turning potential allies into pro-Soviet partisans.
3. The Germans attacked on too broad a front. This thinned them out, meaning less punch at any point of the front, and less chance of supporting each other.
4. Hitler never seemed quite sure what targets he was trying to take. Hitler wanted to capture everything at once, but barely had enough to capture even one target.
5. The weather.
6. English (and American) support for the Soviets would probably still exist, it might not seem much, but it could be critical at 'the tipping point'.
7. Italy was Germany's ally. Much as Hitler hated to be roped to Mussolini, he was. Germany excursions into The Mediterranean, North Africa, The Balkans & Greece would be inevitable.
8. A southern push by the Germans would inevitably cause frictions with England and France, both of which would have had time to re-arm.
9. If pro-Soviets (or anti-Nazi) support came down to actual shipping of supplies to Russia then the German U-Boats would have certainly tried to stop them. Accidental sinking of the wrong ship could have involved the US, England France (or all three) declaring war.
10. Resistance to the Nazi regime came not only from the bottom, but also from the top. I'm sure that English Intelligence could have exploited this for the advantage of (neutral) England. Not to mention the de-stabilising effect this 'treachery' would have had on Germany.
OK just a few points for you to ponder. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 8:47 PM
Most of the comments on this page have gone off on a wild red herring, but...
If even if all high ranking members of the ACLU were hardcore, card-carrying, America-hating Communists and they recruited for Stalin and they, I don't know, passed him nuclear secrets and they continued to do so well after they found out how bad he was and they continue to be pinkos to this very day and they suck half the red off of red Smarties to empinken them, how well does it reflect on Real Americans® that the ACLU is more concerned with defending the Constitution and the ideals it contains than they are?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 19, 2009 8:49 PM
MO - The reason that this thread had wandered off after red-herrings, is that the allegations our resident RRR Retard Mike H is 'Gish Galloping' out are so ludicrous, unsupported and irrelevant, as to not mean anything at all. Without a logical, evidence-based argument to pursue, we'll just have to make our own fun. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 9:05 PM
Here is my take on the whole thing:
We shouldn't be trying this Islamofacist terrorist in a court at all - wether it be civilian or military.
If it were up to me he would have been killed in his sleep by unmarked paramilitary special forces. If the militayr would do their job and kill these terrorists on sight without question and without mercy we wouldn;t be having to worry about a trial, a lawyer and other such items that enemy personell does not deserve. Only US citizens get the right to a trial in a time of war, not enemies of the nation.
They are to be shot on sight without question. Problem solved.
As far as getting intelligence, give to me, I can make them tell me anything I want to know in less than 10 minutes. If the ACLU challenges my methods, I'll have them charged with treason and hanged on the spot.
Somewhere down the line we have to try to win this war. The fact that the ACLU actually helps our enemies and we let them is a sign of pathetic cowardly weakness. If America falls, it will be becuase of weak coward leftists who intolerance more than nuclear powered Islamic terrorists.
God, I wish the South would have won the civil war.
Posted by: Captain Patriot | November 19, 2009 9:09 PM
Captain Patriot - Are you sure you want to "shoot on the spot" those "nuclear powered Islamic terrorists"?
In the immortal words of a (fictional) CIA analyst:
"Uh, Ryan, be careful what you shoot at. Some of the things down there don't react well to bullets" :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 9:27 PM
Captain Patriot "If it were up to me he would have been killed in his sleep by unmarked paramilitary special forces."
How...junta...of you.
"If the militayr would do their job and kill these terrorists on sight without question and without mercy we wouldn;t be having to worry about a trial, a lawyer and other such items that enemy personell does not deserve."
Well, going by how many accused terrorists we've let go, even after torturing them to get them to tell us what to hear, I'd say that rampant violence against them would both:
* Kill a bunch more innocent people and, even if you grant that as being laudable...
* Helps them recruit. BushCo's strategy doesn't fight terrorists. It makes them.
"If the militayr would do their job and kill these terrorists on sight without question and without mercy we wouldn;t be having to worry about a trial, a lawyer and other such items that enemy personell does not deserve."
Accused enemy personel. Accusation is only conviction in totalitarian states. In liberal Constitutional Democracies, not so much.
"Only US citizens get the right to a trial in a time of war, not enemies of the nation."
Which, in an endless war, means that the world is ours to bloody. God Bless America.
"They are to be shot on sight without question. Problem solved."
Obviously. I mean, if Viet Nam taught us one thing, it's that "We have to burn this village to save it" is the single best tool we have to...oh. Never mind.
Killing an innocent man only makes his entire family our enemy (see BushCo comment earlier).
"As far as getting intelligence, give to me, I can make them tell me anything I want to know in less than 10 minutes."
Yes, "anything you want to know". Whether it would be true or not is another matter. But what the heck, it's worked for every other Big Evil. I mean, if we have abandon our ideals to protect them, then, um...we're still going to be the Good Guys, right?
"If the ACLU challenges my methods, I'll have them charged with treason and hanged on the spot."
You're consistent in inconsistency. Congratulations. You are the Right.
"Somewhere down the line we have to try to win this war."
...by making it worse.
...by becoming what we detest.
"The fact that the ACLU actually helps our enemies and we let them is a sign of pathetic cowardly weakness."
If exposing our immoral tactics helps our enemies, then perhaps it would be better to fight well instead of fighting easy.
"If America falls, it will be becuase of weak coward leftists who intolerance more than nuclear powered Islamic terrorists."
Really? My guess is that the debt will drag the US down from "superpower" to "now sponsored by Tyson Foods".
In any event, the ACLU's "traitorous" defense of the Constitution does far less damage than us ignoring it. Pictures of us torturing only help recruit them because, and I can't stress this enough, we are torturing people.
Also, you're sentence made no sense. My reply was based on what I thought a somewhat rational variant of you would make.
"God, I wish the South would have won the civil war."
Then you could still own brown people and bask in your own malevolent ignorance. Instead, you can only do the latter. Pity.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 19, 2009 9:30 PM
It's not a war, Cap'n. It really is business as usual. As long as there have been people trying to live freely with the seat of power explicitly vested in the general population there have been those who are driven batshit insane when they observe people succeeding (and profiting) at it. Notice that you are free to treasure your insanity and insist that others defer to it. Lucky you.
I guess some percent of the population must be led about by the nose and threatened into behaving in a civilized manner. And any despot worth his salt knows that a boogyman, real or contrived, is an indispensable tool when it comes to stirring the minds of men into a froth of miscomprehension and animal panic, thus rendering them compliant.
Fortunately, the inherent risks of a republic are not so great that everyone is dissuaded from participating. If you doubt that, take a look around you.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 19, 2009 9:49 PM
Modusoperandi :
Amusing, but pointless.
You magic little word "accused" does not apply to people who actually take pride in announcing their guilt of terrorism. The fascist that is going on this mock "trial" in new York has not been "accused" of anything. He is absolutely 100% without a doubt the mastermind behind 9/11 and you set there and defend him and his Islamofascist ideology. When we know that an enemy is guilty of terrorism, we do not put them on trial, we take them out. period.
Same thing goes to the Somali pirates. When they attack, hunt them down, take them out, leave their bodies where they fall to rot. Make them fear us. Arresting them and placing them in a five star luxury resort with all the rcomforts that George Soros and Al Gore has is not the way to treat an enemy of the nation who is hell bent on killing us.
I say take them out or surrender altogether. Fight to win or don;t fight at all. No war is unwinnable. it is only unwinnable in the mid of the weaker warrior.
We have a larger army, advanced weaponry (that the world hates for us to use in self defense), state of the art aircraft, the world's best elite special forces, intelligence capabilities beyond most liberas's comprehension, etc. Use it or loose it. What's the point in having an advanced military if we cannot demonstrate it's capabilities to an enemy who wants us dead to begin with?
Sorry Modusoperandi, you are so wrong. A frightened enemy is easier to get along with than an emboldened one.
Posted by: Captain patriot | November 19, 2009 9:52 PM
A frightened enemy will kill you quicker than one who is confident. The frightened enemy knows he must strike now to survive; the confident enemy has no such compulsion and is not distracted by worry of his immediate survival.
This is one of the early lessons of conflict.
You are no warrior.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 19, 2009 10:02 PM
Captin Partyon:
You type like a real badass. I was kinda scared of Mikey, but you make my blood run cold. I just bet that you were oneathem "unmarked paramilitary special forces (whatever the fuck that term means). Then again, that would have meant leaving the comforts of mom's basement and the ample supplies of combat rations (Cheetos and Dew) that she supplies to you, her muchloved spawn.
I would say you're fucking pathetic regardless, but the fact that you have no clue about the legal aspects of international warfare just makes it more obvious. You are one sad fuck.
Posted by: democommie | November 19, 2009 10:03 PM
Captain Patriot, #78: God, I wish the South would have won the civil war.
I do, too, although probably for slightly different reasons: the racist religious fundamentalists could live in their backwards isolated third world ghetto like they've always wanted, and the northern states could work toward a better fulfillment of Western Enlightenment ideals without the retards hindering their progress.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 19, 2009 10:18 PM
Cap'n Pugwash,
If you Americans are so smart, how come you don't have nuclear-powered terrorists? Answer me that, Cap'n Pugwash!
If the US behaves outside the law, then it is an outlaw. That means no laws apply to US citizens. Robbing, defrauding, beating, torturing, and/or murdering an American citizen would not be considered illegal*. Sure you wanna go that way, Cap'n? - DJ
------------------------------------
* Not to mention the economic consequences. No trade agreement would be legal, trading with an outlaw could make you an outlaw too, creditors couldn't recover amounts owed to them, any attempt to defend shipping could be considered piracy and so on. Welcome to MeriKKKa, a bastion of the dark ages in the 21st century.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 10:19 PM
democommie,
That's just it. There should be no rules in war. The worst mistake we ever made was signing that damned Geneva Convention crap. We have not won a war since then.
As far as "unmarked paramilitary special forces", they exist. Most people will never see one and live to tell about it. They carry no insignas, no identification, no markings of any kind. Their mission is to search and destroy, kill the man on the list, period.
As far as the rest your your comments, they must reflect your drunken sodomite lifestyle. Mine is cleaner than yours ever will be. can you say acid trip, democommie? Looks like you had way too many.
I also see that your weak socilaist facist president has still not made up his feeble mind about sending the needed troops oversease. He is weak when it comes to America, but strong when it comes to bashing America. His arrogance is his weakness and his socialist/communist/marxist ties to these radicals in Washington will be his undoing. He will be a one term president just like Jimmy Carter. Maybe we can elect a strong leader next time. For now we just have to try to survive the economic holocause he is creating everyday that goes by. Before long, we will be like california, too far in debt to fund important things, but not to far in debt to ban televison and gay marriage. Yep, television banning and pot legalizing, and sodomy parades are definitely more important than the economy. At least, that's the view of California. Now, that's class we can strive for! Thank God I live in Mississipp! At least we can watch television without some ecofreak dictator telling us we can't. We are still FREE here in our state. No dictators are allowed here. neither is pot and sodomy parades.
------------------------
There is no such thing as an unwinnable war. It is only unwinnable in the mind of the weaker warrior - Captain Patriot
Posted by: Captain patriot | November 19, 2009 10:21 PM
Re Dingojack
Mr. Dingojack raises a number of interesting points. It is quite true that Hitler made a number of blunders in Operation Barbarossa. Of course, Stalin also made a number of blunders.
1. He fell for the German disinformation campaign in 1936 which suggested that his generals were all traitors. Stalin reacted by either executing those generals or sending them to the gulag. The Soviet Army had not recovered from the loss of senior commanders by 1940 (they hadn't recovered by 1941).
2. He placed far too high a percentage of his forces too close to the western edge of the former Soviet Union and ignored intelligence from the British acquired through Ultra intercepts that the invasion was imminent. As a result of these blunders, 100 Soviet divisions were destroyed very early on.
3. If the invasion had taken place in 1940, it is likely that most of the munitions plants would not have been relocated west of the Urals and would have been overrun by the Wehrmacht.
Mr. Dingojack also assumes that Britain and the US would have sent supplies to the Soviet Union. Remember, the assumption here is the Buchanan assumption, that they, and France stay out entirely of the war assuming that Hitler and Stalin will knock each other off. Further, if the US, Britain, and France stay out, there is no need for Hitler to concern himself with anything happening in North Africa. Remember, Italy invaded North Africa only after France had been eliminated from the war. It is highly doubtful that even a schmuck like Mussolini would have been willing to take on the French Army by himself as Hitler would have made it plain that he could expect no German assistance. The whole idea here was to keep the Western allies out of the war until the defeat of the Soviet Union.
Re Captain patriot
God, I wish the South would have won the civil war.
Given that the Souths' leading general, Robert E. Lee was, in many respects one of the most incapable commanding generals in history, that outcome was highly unlikely.
Posted by: SLC | November 19, 2009 10:21 PM
Cap'n Pugwash - Confident enemies not only will 'hold off', when they strike they will strike deep and hard* at the wrong place. Then the small, agile enemies will be free to attack their flanks or into their camp, while using the 'overkill' of their enemy's attack for propaganda.
Basic tactics (even a dummy like me can get it). - DJ
----------
* Ooh quick! Better get off your lardy rear and get the tissues, Cap'n. Your mom will put the plastic covers back on if she finds more of your bio-fluids on her favorite couch.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 10:34 PM
"You magic little word "accused" does not apply to people who actually take pride in announcing their guilt of terrorism."
He could take out a full-page ad in the paper bragging of his acts, but until he's convicted…
And for those who confess, well, anything under torture, are they guilty? Are they really? A bunch of "conversos" said a bunch of things when put to the Question, but how many of them really did the things they said they did? How many of those they fingered under the Inquisition did the same?
Are you sure you want to go to a world where an admission of guilt is the same as being guilty? (Combine that with the mere accusation of something leading to torture leading to admission, and you've created a remarkable hell)
A civilized nation that ignores its own laws and ideals when they seem to get in the way is not a civilized nation.
"He is absolutely 100% without a doubt the mastermind behind 9/11 and you set there and defend him and his Islamofascist ideology."
Hardly. I'm defending his, and everybody's, right to a trial.
"Same thing goes to the Somali pirates. When they attack, hunt them down, take them out, leave their bodies where they fall to rot."
Once an enemy is disarmed, he's not longer a threat. Putting a bullet into someone who is pointing a gun at you is justified. Putting one into a guy in a cell is not, when he hasn't been convicted of a crime.
"Make them fear us."
What power has fear over someone who is already willing to die?
"Arresting them and placing them in a five star luxury resort with all the rcomforts that George Soros and Al Gore has is not the way to treat an enemy of the nation who is hell bent on killing us."
Methinks someone hypeboles too much.
"Fight to win or don;t fight at all."
We're in agreement that we should fight to win. We differ on the strategy. I should point out, as I did earlier, that yours is proven to win only in the sense that it helps the guys we're trying to beat increase their numbers.
"We have a larger army, advanced weaponry (that the world hates for us to use in self defense)…" (emphasis mine)
A casual glance at history shows that to be a lie. The US is more into "defending its interests", where the interests are generally Big Oil or Dole Fruits, than defending its people.
"What's the point in having an advanced military if we cannot demonstrate it's capabilities to an enemy who wants us dead to begin with?"
When all you've got a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Bombs are terrible at "smoking them out". They're good only at "blowing shit up". Any war on terror that's fighting to win can't rely on the imprecision of smartbombs. Killing one guy by leveling his block (and no matter how precise a 500 pounder is, it's still 500 pounds exploding) just makes a thousand more enemies.
Making more enemies that you absolutely need to is a recipe for an endless war that you will lose. Radicalizing non-radicals in your righteous zeal to get actual radicals is stupid.
Ignoring your nation's own ideals when long-term goals conflict with short-term gains (or the appearance of gains) is the mark of a fool.
"Sorry Modusoperandi, you are so wrong."
And with your well thought out, ably cited argument, I'm apparently talking to a wall.
"A frightened enemy is easier to get along with than an emboldened one."
Again, what power has fear over someone who is already willing to die?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 19, 2009 10:45 PM
Captain Pissgums:
You are aware that you have outed yourself as the lying sack of shit that we all pretty much thought you were, yes? If you have any unis in your closet, I'd gess you picked them up at the army surplus store.
You wish the South had won the Civil War? Because that would make their blundering leaders something less than the traitors that they were?
That you have no fucking idea about how wars are really fought is pretty obvious.
Posted by: democommie | November 19, 2009 10:56 PM
SLC - My assumptions were based on early Anglo-French neutrality, followed by a realistic gradual hardening of their attitude toward the warring parties.
Also I forgot one the the biggest factors working against both parties, their leaders. Of the two at least Stalin kept out (at the last possible moment) of the military decision-making, Hitler increasing (and disastrously) micro-managed.
Hitler's obsession with the Treaty of Versailles would have made France too tempting not to attack, and his ideas of Greater Germania would have led him further into the former territories of Austria-Hungary. Also Italy's meddling in Africa (ineffectual as it was) would have drawn him that way, threatening what were seen as Anglo-French interests.
Stalin managed to move his factories after a surprise attack in 1941, I don't see how he couldn't do the same in 1940. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 10:59 PM
[Captain patriot] - Gish gallop, assertions declared as fact[Scienceblogger] - Attempt at rational reply
[Captain patriot] - Gish gallop of same points worded slightly differently, further assertions declared as fact
[Scienceblogger] - Long and sad sigh, weeping for the future
...
You, sir, are no patriot. You're a thug wrapped in the flag.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 19, 2009 11:01 PM
Oh and Cap'n Pugwash, have you ever thought about the fact that your ancestors were a lot like you* probably is the reason why the South lost? -DJ
* intellectually, emotionally and physically, I would guess.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 11:12 PM
The southern leaders were not traitors. They were brave warriors who were outnumbered and outsourced, and yet still almost kicked butt. Why the surrendered is beyond me. I am a southern rebel till the day I die. o doubt about it. I take pride in flying my confederate flag and always will. It has historical value. Besides if the north would not have been so greedy, the war would have never started anyway. geberal Stonewall Jackson was absolutely the greatest general America has ever seen. My America anyway. I don;t really count California, Washngton, and Massachussetts as states anymore. They are more like Cuba and the Soviet Union than America.
You may laugh at me for being souther and conservative, but at least my state hasn't banned television. At least my state still has some dignity and doesn't allow open sodomy parades in front of children.
Call them traitors all you want. They were heroes. The only traitors are the ACLU and the fascists and Islamic terrorists that they represent.
Still think we should try Bin laden in a court? Not a chance. I say put a bullet in his head the first time he pops it out into the sunlight and leave it at that. No trial, no surrender, no negotial. he is to be shot on sight no questions asked. The first man wh can do this will get a $50 million dollar reward. Go get him. Bring me his head when you're done and collect your reward. Then bring me his 72 virgins for my reward.
I know how modern wars are fought. They are fought within the walls of congress and a washington, not the battlefeild. Fund the war, then stay the hell out of the way until the generals win the war. Simple ins't it?
The fascist Islamic terrorist that is about to make a mockery of America in a new york court should have been executed when he was captured. You logical law only applies to American citizens who commit a crime.
He did not commit a crime. He committed an act of war. There is a difference.
Did adolf Hitler commit a crime or an act of war? Did the japanese commit a crime at Pearl harbor or an act of war?
I think you forget that THEY declared war on US. They started it, not us.
The constitution does not apply in this situation. It never has. A foreign enemy soldier does not have American constitutional rights like an american citizen who robs a bank or beats up an elderly man, or rapes someone. It is not the same thing. If you want hm in court, put him in military court, not civilian.
Posted by: Captain patriot | November 19, 2009 11:15 PM
Wait a minute, big boy. Where the hell do you come off claiming the virgins? Claiming special privilege again, are we?
Again. You are no warrior. Nor do you speak for they who are.
You might be a mean sumbitch but that's about it.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 19, 2009 11:48 PM
And somehow, I'm guessing you completely miss the irony of accusing others of treason.
Posted by: Davis | November 20, 2009 12:54 AM
"Still think we should try Bin laden in a court? Not a chance. I say put a bullet in his head the first time he pops it out into the sunlight and leave it at that."
Unless Captian Pee is writing from somewhere close by where bin Laden is hiding at this very moment, either in actual service to the USA or as a hired "contractor" (aka merc), then he has proven himself one who expects others to do his fighting for him.
No patriot at all.
Now we'll see a long rant about how one can be a patriot even when sitting on one's ass in a trialer park, watching WWF re-runs, while American sodliers die in the mud far from home.
Wannabe Syndrome is pretty prevalent in those who have nothing of value in their own lives: Nearly everyone wants to identify with those they admire, no matter how ill-placed that admiration. The difference comes from the fact that some merely talk about their wannabe status, while others take action.
If Captian Pee were the Confederate Patriot he claims, why have we not heard of him and his fellows stepping forward to finish the work their forebrears started? Losing once should not be the end of it if the work was noble and good.
"The South's gonna rise again!" has been on the lips of folks like Caption Pee for close to 150 years. That's a long time for an army to regroup.
******
I'm one who thinks that the War of Northern Agression was a big friggin' mistake, but my assessment is based on Monday-morning economic analysis.
It turns out that it would have been cheaper for the US economy, north and south, if the government bought all the slaves at the going rate, then moved them into northern states where (god forbid!) State's Rights of no slavery laws would have prevailed. Cheaper than fighting the war and the subsequent costs of "Reconstruction."
Sorry. No citation available at this time. But in those days, government bailout plans were not so popular, I guess(if you ignore TJ's purchase of the Lousiana Territory).
Posted by: 10,000li | November 20, 2009 12:56 AM
Let our powers combine!
Jingoism!
Xenophobia!
Sociopathy!
Belligerence!
Ignorance!
By your powers combined, I am Captain Patriot!
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 20, 2009 1:03 AM
With an estimated 3,521,110 slaves at $40 a head that comes to $140,844,400 (or in 2008: $468,115,480,578.98 based on share of GDP) seems pretty expensive to me but I'm guess 'reconstruction' was even worse (and run rather like affairs during the Iraqi reconstruction)
Posted by: DIngoJack | November 20, 2009 1:18 AM
Captain patriot "You may laugh at me for being souther and conservative..."
I'm not laughing. All I'm doing is pointing out that the policies you're advocating are a) wrongheaded, b) unconstitutional and c) ultimately damaging.
"...but at least my state hasn't banned television."
What television did they ban, anyway?
"At least my state still has some dignity and doesn't allow open sodomy parades in front of children."
Actually, although there may be resistence to it, it does. That's the thing about the Constitution; it even protects the people you don't like.
"You logical law only applies to American citizens who commit a crime."
It's not "our" logic. It's the Law. And, again, it even protects people you don't like. Friend or enemy, all people get the Bill of Rights.
"The constitution does not apply in this situation. It never has."
Again, no.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 20, 2009 2:44 AM
Couldn't the South then use their new-found wealth to just...buy more slaves?
Posted by: MartinM | November 20, 2009 6:07 AM
"You may laugh at me for being souther and conservative... "
No, no, that's not why we laugh at you. We laugh at you because you're a fucking idiot who talks a lot about killing people and probably has never had the experience of having other people shoot him on sight. I suggest that you strive for that ultra-realistic experience.
Remember, "service guantees citizenship"*
*Starship Troopers Mobile Infantry recruitment campaign--another fine example of jingoistic bullshit.
Posted by: democommie | November 20, 2009 6:55 AM
In comparison to the calculation above (#100) the Marshall Plan [1948-1951] cost $12,731,000,000 or in 2008 dollars (based on share of GDP) would be $688,074,339,071.86 or about 46.988% higher than the post Civil War reconstruction. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 20, 2009 7:46 AM
This thread is far too long but I have to share my amusement at Captain Patriot simultaneously claiming to by loyal to the United States and to its declared enemies. Using his definitions George Washington was a British patriot loyal to the crown.
Posted by: Matty | November 20, 2009 8:18 AM
Mike H: That Johnson who was working "against" King wouldn't happen to be the same one who wrote and forced through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, would it? I seem to recall he did something similar with something called the Voting Rights Act of 1965 too.
Lets face facts here Mike, if you really are so deluded that you buy the conservative B.S. about Johnson, the man who made the democratic party the equal rights party, being an enemy of minorities, then you really are just too deluded to be listened to. I'd no more trust what you have to say than I would a schizophrenic.
As to Lamont, he was a fool for not acknowledging the truth of Stalin's tyranny and brutality. He was also a man who dedicated his life to the struggle to build a decent life for working men and to make U.S. society generally more equitable. I fail to see how a life spent standing up for immigrants and the poor, combined with a handful of intemperate, ideological, private remarks regarding politics makes him a traitor. Oliver North sold guns to the Iranian revolutionaries through a Syrian terrorist front so that he could fund Central American drug runners; against the expressed wishes and without the knowledge of the sitting president of the time, if Reagan himself is to be believed. North literally gave aid and comfort to two groups of our national enemies, and has never shown the slightest hint of repentance for that (indeed, he expresses pride for it frequently); do you consider him a traitor?
Posted by: Julian | November 20, 2009 8:29 AM
Who in his right mind calls himself "Captain Patriot" and expects to be taken seriously in a grownup forum? Now I'm stuck with the mental picture of a kid wearing his briefs on top of his pajama-pants and pretending to fly whenever he runs.
God, I wish the South would have won the civil war.
Oh, great -- now I'm stuck with the mental picture of a kid wearing his briefs on top of his pajama-pants and pretending to fly across the South, blowing up the Underground Railroad and kicking the asses of rebellious slaves everywhere. Suddenly that remake of "Speed Racer" looks believable...
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 20, 2009 9:39 AM
Posted by: Taz | November 20, 2009 10:28 AM
They were brave warriors who were outnumbered and outsourced...
What, Lee had Chinese soldiers fighting at Gettysburg?
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 20, 2009 10:40 AM
Mike H: That Johnson who was working "against" King wouldn't happen to be the same one who wrote and forced through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, would it? I seem to recall he did something similar with something called the Voting Rights Act of 1965 too.
If you are really ignorant of the fact that both JFK and LBJ ran one of the most notorious smear campaigns against King, then I really don’t know what to say except you could fill a small library with all the FOIA releases and books written on this subject.
Lets face facts here Mike, if you really are so deluded that you buy the conservative B.S. about Johnson, the man who made the democratic party the equal rights party, being an enemy of minorities, then you really are just too deluded to be listened to. I'd no more trust what you have to say than I would a schizophrenic.
One could be, as LBJ was, a “friend of minorities” and out to destroy a potential political rival. Its well documented that LBJ did this, and I honestly expected better from the “reality based community”
As to Lamont, he was a fool for not acknowledging the truth of Stalin's tyranny and brutality. He was also a man who dedicated his life to the struggle to build a decent life for working men and to make U.S. society generally more equitable. I fail to see how a life spent standing up for immigrants and the poor, combined with a handful of intemperate, ideological, private remarks regarding politics makes him a traitor.
The treachery part came when he agreed to establish a covert relationship with an individual he knew to be a Soviet agent. Like many of his contemporaries, his advocacy for the poor was a cover for some dark totalitarian tendencies and these tendencies manife3sted themselves with his support for Stalin, the purges, the Pact, and all that jazz.
Oliver North sold guns to the Iranian revolutionaries through a Syrian terrorist front so that he could fund Central American drug runners; against the expressed wishes and without the knowledge of the sitting president of the time, if Reagan himself is to be believed. North literally gave aid and comfort to two groups of our national enemies, and has never shown the slightest hint of repentance for that (indeed, he expresses pride for it frequently); do you consider him a traitor?
North was awarded a silver star, a bronze star and two purple hearts. What he did during Iran Contra, he did to further the security of the country. Had congress not passed the Boland amendment, the Regan administration wouldn’t have had to resort to illegal methods to aid anti-communist fighters in Nicaragua.
And for the record, it would have been a wonderful thing had Germany defeated the Soviets. The war would have been over on or about August 4th 1945 any way you look at it.
Posted by: mike h | November 20, 2009 11:07 AM
Like many of his contemporaries, his advocacy for the poor was a cover for some dark totalitarian tendencies and these tendencies manife3sted themselves with his support for Stalin, the purges, the Pact, and all that jazz.
Right -- his advocacy for the poor was an elaborate cover for a conspiracy not to do shit for a totalitarian regime.
And for the record, it would have been a wonderful thing had Germany defeated the Soviets.
Thanks, the record now shows Mike H is an idiot, a bigot, and a Nazi sympathizer, with or without the caps.
The record also shows Mike H is a flaming hypocrite: first he condemns others for "working" or "collaborating" (or something) with one evil totalitarian regime, and then he openly expresses support for another equally evil totalitarian regime. Thanks, Mike, for showing us the true reactionary infantilism of the teabaggers.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 20, 2009 11:24 AM
Posted by: Taz | November 20, 2009 11:33 AM
And there it is in a nutshell. The law doesn't matter, the Constitution doesn't matter, guilt or innocence don't matter...
And the total lack of any real positive result from the action in question doesn't matter either. Seriously, what DID that Iran-contra thing accomplish for America, other than making us look like patsies, and making Reagan look even more spineless and senile than he already appeared?
A key-shaped cake? Yeah, that did wonders for US-Iranian relations.
Funneling money to the Contras so they could blow up more schools? Yeah, that did wonders for stopping corrupt leftists like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and their rising sympathizers in Nicaragua and elsewhere in Latin America. (Guess what, skippy -- the Sandinistas are still the largest political party in Nicaragua, and always have been.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 20, 2009 11:41 AM
Mike H. and Captain Pitiful:
If you two fellers could get together and stick a gun in each other's mouth and pull the trigger...now that would PROVE that your genuine, manly men and not a couple of poseurs.
Posted by: democommie | November 20, 2009 11:44 AM
Mike H stated "The war would have been over on or about August 4th 1945 any way you look at it." Evidence for this assertion?
As for that elusive "food of the country", I'm sure the thousands who lost loved ones to cocaine addiction wouldn't agree with you there.
Taz = Mike sounds dangerously close to "Nonsense, WE (or I) decide who is a Jew!" - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 20, 2009 11:58 AM
It turns out that it would have been cheaper for the US economy, north and south, if the government bought all the slaves at the going rate, then moved them into northern states where (god forbid!) State's Rights of no slavery laws would have prevailed. Cheaper than fighting the war and the subsequent costs of "Reconstruction."
WTF are you talking about?
The South never would have allowed this. They, like almost all slave owning socieities throughout history, were emotionally attached to Slavery and would have resisted giving it up even if it made obvious economic sense.
They NEVER would have given up slaves without a fight. So they got one
Posted by: libarbarian | November 20, 2009 12:03 PM
Re libarbarian
In fairness, there were Southerners who were in favor of gradual emancipation. Example, Robert E. Lee.
Posted by: SLC | November 20, 2009 12:13 PM
SLC:
Granting that you read a lot more history than I do, are we talking "gradual emancipation" in terms of weeks or centuries?
Posted by: democommie | November 20, 2009 2:03 PM
Right -- his advocacy for the poor was an elaborate cover for a conspiracy not to do shit for a totalitarian regime.
Except agree to covertly do their bidding .. nothing to see here, move along folks.
Thanks, the record now shows Mike H is an idiot, a bigot, and a Nazi sympathizer, with or without the caps.
Wanting both the Soviets and the Germans to lose WWII fighting each other isn’t “pro Nazi” jackass.
Seriously, what DID that Iran-contra thing accomplish for America, other than making us look like patsies, and making Reagan look even more spineless and senile than he already appeared?
Well it did free the hostages in Lebanon, shored up anti-communist guerillas in Nicaragua and consequentially keep a lid on the FMLN in El Salvador … all in all, pretty successful.
Funneling money to the Contras so they could blow up more schools? Yeah, that did wonders for stopping corrupt leftists like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and their rising sympathizers in Nicaragua and elsewhere in Latin America.
Were all of the contra’s saints, of course not, but that’s how insurgencies are fought and the contras were no less brutal than the Sandinistas.
(Guess what, skippy -- the Sandinistas are still the largest political party in Nicaragua, and always have been.)
Remind me who won the election in 1990? Think there would have even been an election if the contras were still an organized force at that point?
Mike H stated "The war would have been over on or about August 4th 1945 any way you look at it." Evidence for this assertion?
There were two smoking holes where cities stood in Japan around that time. Had Germany been in the fight still one of those holes would have traded places with Berlin.
Posted by: mike h | November 20, 2009 2:50 PM
Mikey:
"Well it did free the hostages in Lebanon, shored up anti-communist guerillas in Nicaragua and consequentially keep a lid on the FMLN in El Salvador … all in all, pretty successful.
Funneling money to the Contras so they could blow up more schools? Yeah, that did wonders for stopping corrupt leftists like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and their rising sympathizers in Nicaragua and elsewhere in Latin America.
Were all of the contra’s saints, of course not, but that’s how insurgencies are fought and the contras were no less brutal than the Sandinistas."
Really? You, of course, have some independently gathered data on this?
I imagine that you are a major booster of any "freedom fighters" that kill unarmed civilians, terrorize the campesinos, murder priests and nuns and use any means they can think of to "keep a lid on" the locals.
That you're a liar or delusional is really the only question I have.
BTW, dumbfuck, we can thank the Contras and a succesion of idiotic U.S. foreign policy initiatives for making the rise of people like Morales and Chavez not only possible, but inevitable.
"There were two smoking holes where cities stood in Japan around that time. Had Germany been in the fight still one of those holes would have traded places with Berlin"
Wow, now you've gained access to Harry Truman's personal diary? The likelihood of the U.S. dropping a nuke on Berlin, a european city full of white, europeans who are not, y'now, yellow sons of the devil--mmm, gonna need a little more than conjecture from you.
Posted by: democommie | November 20, 2009 3:40 PM
Re Mike H
The trouble with Mr. Mike Hs' contention that one of the holes in the ground would have been Berlin is that, if Great Britain had been knocked out of the war, which probably would have happened if the former Soviet Union had been eliminated, there would have been no airfield from which a B29 carrying little boy or fat man would have been in range of Berlin. Unless Mr. Mike H thinks that Truman would have ordered a 1 way mission, a la Doolittles' attack on Tokyo.
Re democommie
Does Mr. democommie seriously believe that the US would have not used the nuclear bomb on Germany, given that the US and Great Britain showed no reluctance or hesitancy in ordering massive fire bombing attacks on German cities (e.g. Dresden)?
Posted by: SLC | November 20, 2009 5:27 PM
Do The Politcally Incorrect Guide to the South and the Politcally incorrect Guide to the Civil War count as history books?
Posted by: Captain Patriot | November 20, 2009 8:05 PM
Do The Politcally Incorrect Guide to the South and the Politcally incorrect Guide to the Civil War count as history books?
Posted by: Captain Patriot | November 20, 2009 8:05 PM
Captain Patriot: I guess that depends on how you define history.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 20, 2009 8:26 PM
I read somewhere that J R Oppenheimer certainly thought one of the bombs were bound for Germany (although Berlin might be stretching it).
'Bomber' Harris and Curtis LeMay were (even at the time) not known for their strong morality when it came to bombing the shit outta something. I don't think they'd have any qualms, as long as 'the end justified the means'.
Had that occurred, in my opinion, the anti-nuclear campaign would have been (probably) advanced by a decade or so. Pictures of European casualties (both direct and indirect*) would have raised opposition to nuclear weapons. - DJ
--------------
* the fall-out cloud would have swirled around Europe (based on the Chernobyl cloud) radiation sickness would thus be spread out across the continent. Eventually the cloud would have blown east-ward into the Soviet Union and her allies.
"...the sun for shame will not show it's face ... all are punish'd"
Posted by: DingoJack | November 20, 2009 8:52 PM
Re democommie
Granting that you read a lot more history than I do, are we talking "gradual emancipation" in terms of weeks or centuries?
I can't provide a definitive answer but my impression is that Lee was thinking in terms of a period of years. I would also point out that Lee proposed to Confederate president Jefferson Davis (as did Confederate general Pat Claybourne) in 1864 that male slaves of combat age be offered their freedom in exchange for serving in the Confederate Army. Davis rejected the advice and told Lee that doing any such thing would nullify the entire justification for secession which was the preservation of slavery.
Re Dingojack
At the time of the first nuclear bomb, it is my information that none of the scientists were aware of the danger of radioactive fallout. That only came to their attention after the surrender of Japan when American troops encountered survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who later died of radiation poisoning.
Posted by: SLC | November 20, 2009 10:03 PM
Captain Patentnonsense, 122:
Not even remotely. Those guides in general aren't politically incorrect, they're just incorrect.
Posted by: Brian X | November 21, 2009 12:07 AM
SLC - I never said they did.
In the counter-factual that I was imagining, a similar discovery would have been made, but in Europe rather than Japan. The long-term effects would have been discovered years later*, hence the Anti-Nuclear Movement being advanced by ten years. It would have been quicker, but not immediate. - DJ
------------------
*Especially in the Soviet Bloc. Such information would have been kept from the people for fear of frightening them or causing them to rise up or some-such. The data would only have turned up after the fall of the Soviet Union, if at all.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 21, 2009 12:21 AM
SLC:
I have no doubt that LeMay or Harris would have used a nuke. I'm not so sure that Truman would have gone along with it for some of the reasons cited by DingoJack @ 125.
As for whether the scientific community knew about the dangers of radiation; there was ample information available to know that being in the vicinity of a nuke when it went off was probably a really, really bad idea.
Posted by: democommie | November 21, 2009 12:29 AM
The Politically Incorrect guides, in my experience, are hopelessly inaccurate, sloganeering dogshit, far more riddled with bias than any of the books they're setting themselves up in opposition to. People really need to start reading actual history written by actual historians: if right-wingers read Ian Kershaw or Simon Sebag Montefiore on World War 2 rather than treating Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Beck as authorities, this whole teabag movement would never have gotten off the ground.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | November 21, 2009 5:01 AM
Captain Pee Pot,
If you truly believe that it's a laudable act to kill alleged enemies of the US without any due process, then you won't have any objection when my unmarked paramilitary militia takes your ass out, right? Because as I see it, you're an un-American, Constitution-hating, traitor. You would turn the US into a fascist regime where due process and civil liberties no longer exist. That clearly makes you an enemy of my country. You'd just damn well better hope my side sticks to the rule of law, and doesn't take you up on on the idea of summary execution, because you've moved to the top of the list.
Posted by: jhanley@adrian.edu | November 21, 2009 9:38 AM
How can anyone with a sane mind defend the ACLU and their disgusting actions?! Helping Nazis to walk through a town of holocaust survivors is what you people here think of civil liberties?
They defended Phelps?!, NAMBLA?! and various others of the most subhuman scum on earth.
Posted by: NickCave | November 23, 2009 6:15 AM
NickCave: Think of the ACLU as the A-Team. When nobody else will defend your rights, they will. Men having sex with underage boys is illegal. Men using their First Amendment right to delare that they should be able to is not. Neo-Nazis talking about "the purity of the white race" (or whatever crap they talk about) is not illegal. Neo-Nazis running around killing Jews (or anybody) is.
As distasteful as it sounds, the Constitution even protects the rights of people that you don't like. That's not a bug. It's a feature. Remember that no matter what you believe or what views you, personally, expouse, there's an American or group of Americans somewhere who think that the Constitution doesn't apply to you. If it doesn't protect everybody, it protects nobody.
If that doesn't help wrap your head around it, think about it this way - Which is more dangerous, having their idiocy out in public or hidden?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 23, 2009 6:29 AM
NickCave - One could say that the ACLU defends 'bad seeds'. One could, but probably really shouldn't. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 23, 2009 7:04 AM
If you're a little bamboozled try here. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 23, 2009 7:40 AM
NickCave: Think of the ACLU as the A-Team. When nobody else will defend your rights, they will.
Unless you get caught having a gun in your home in Chicago ... in that case better call the NRA.
Posted by: Mike H | November 23, 2009 5:39 PM
NickCave, #132:
Just out of curiosity, where would you draw the line between unprotected speech and protected but unpopular speech?
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 23, 2009 6:03 PM
Nick Cave wrote:
Yep. They even defended subhuman scum like Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell. That's the thing about the first amendment: It isn't needed to protect popular, mainstream speech, it's only needed to protect the most controversial speech. The ACLU doesn't really defend the person or group being censored, they defend the principle of free speech. And I'm very glad they do.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 23, 2009 6:15 PM
NickCave,
Problem is, you have to defend the most offensive speech because it is the speech that needs to be defended. If the ACLU and other organizations protected only the speech that wasn't offensive, they wouldn't need to do anything. Also, if you don't protect the most offensive speech, how long is it before all speech is considered offensive?
I despise the Klan and Neo-Nazis, but if I don't protect their right to be jackasses, who is going to protect the rights of the outspoken atheist? Obviously some Christians would like to shut atheists up, if you establish the precedent that some speech is okay, but other speech is offensive, etc., then who gets to determine which speech is protected and which isn't? Religious speech? Which religions? Political speech? Obviously the majority have spoken, therefore the opposition can be silenced, right? Better hope your party is in power when that ruling comes down because then you'll never have to worry about them losing another election ever again ... other the other hand, if the party you disagree with is in power, you better start checking on job opportunities and travel expenses to another country 'cause you'll forever be a silenced outcast.
The whole point is that we have to protect the most vile, offensive speech no matter how much we hate the content of that speech. If we don't, we risk losing all speech, all freedom, all of our voices.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 23, 2009 6:16 PM
Mike H "Unless you get caught having a gun in your home in Chicago ... in that case better call the NRA."
I said "when nobody else...". Defending the 2nd Amendment (at least the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" part of it) is the NRA's raison d'être*.
*That I dared use what's probably a foreign term clearly shows my daring foreignness. Zut alors!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 23, 2009 6:25 PM
"Unless you get caught having a gun in your home in Chicago ... in that case better call the NRA."
Geez, Mikey. You mean I can't even OWN a gun if I live in Chicago? Oh, I can own a gun, just not a handgun, semi-auto or fully automatic weapon. Oh, yes, I see. That's EXACTLY THE SAME THING!!
Lies like yours are why you are ridiculed or ignored.
Posted by: democommie | November 23, 2009 9:57 PM
How can anyone with a sane mind defend the ACLU and their disgusting actions?!
What makes the ACLU different from all those lawyers who do exactly the same thing for whoever will pay them?
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 23, 2009 10:13 PM
Ah, a chance to quote some lines:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
- from "A Man for All Seasons"
Posted by: Taz | November 23, 2009 10:21 PM
Mike H - You own and keep an artillery piece in your home? Oh I see, you mean a handgun. {/pedant] :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 23, 2009 10:38 PM