I'm with Lindsay of Majikthise (and many others) on this one in telling Senator Reid that Republican legislation that would allow torture and allow George Bush to define the Geneva Convention to suit himself is beyond the pale. Even worse, the same legislation essentially abrogates habeas corpus, a writ for which is "a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody." (LectLaw).
Here's what Lindsay said:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says that Democratic senators want to reach a compromise on torture. The NYT surmises that Reid wants the Democrats to look "strong" going into 2006.If that's true the reasoning is as shortsighted as it is reprehensible.
Tough guys don't torture their prisoners. Cowards and sadists do.
Only losers torture, only losers compromise on torture:
Republicans also said they were trying to reach a compromise on the habeas corpus provision of the bill, which would deny a suspect the right to challenge his detention in court.Democrats, who have found themselves on the losing end of the national security debate the past two national elections, said the changes to the bill had not yet reached a level that would cause them to try to block it altogether.
"We want to do this," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. "And we want to do it in compliance with the direction from the Supreme Court. We want to do it in compliance with the Constitution." [NYT]
The American people need moral leadership on this issue, not pandering. (Lindsay Beyerstein at Majikthise)
There is a mighty battle going on between the election pragmatists who will hold their noses and look the other way when some Democrats vote for torture and those of us for whom habeas corpus and torture are not contingent principles, fine unless they will lose you an election. They are fundamental principles and you fight for them everywhere and always. Torture rends human flesh for the purpose of causing pain. It doesn't produce information. Torturers know this but don't care. No doctor or public health professional can approve of it or of those who approve of it. It is a tool used by cowards and sadists, as Lindsay says, or used for revenge for as yet unproven crimes, which is what a terrified American public has been manipulated into wanting. It's not a spontaneous want. They have been led into this grotesquely anti-American position and they can be led out of it again. If we have leaders.
I will not support any elected official who votes for this, won't give him or her a nickel, won't ask anyone to vote for them, won't work on their behalf. I hope the Democrats take control of one or both houses of Congress in the midterm elections. I agree strongly this is crucially important. But some prices are too high. I will not swallow this garbage, not even if refusing means risking an election victory.
Here's what poet e.e. cummings said (via Poets.org):
i sing of Olaf glad and bigby E. E. Cummings
XXX
i sing of Olaf glad and bigwhose warmest heart recoiled at war:
a conscientious object-or
his wellbelovéd colonel(trigwestpointer most succinctly bred)
took erring Olaf soon in hand;
but--though an host of overjoyed
noncoms(first knocking on the head
him)do through icy waters roll
that helplessness which others stroke
with brushes recently employed
anent this muddy toiletbowl,
while kindred intellects evoke
allegiance per blunt instruments--
Olaf(being to all intents
a corpse and wanting any rag
upon what God unto him gave)
responds,without getting annoyed
"I will not kiss your fucking flag"
straightway the silver bird looked grave(departing hurriedly to shave)
but--though all kinds of officers(a yearning nation's blueeyed pride)
their passive prey did kick and curse
until for wear their clarion
voices and boots were much the worse,
and egged the firstclassprivates on
his rectum wickedly to tease
by means of skilfully applied
bayonets roasted hot with heat--
Olaf(upon what were once knees)
does almost ceaselessly repeat
"there is some shit I will not eat"
our president,being of whichassertions duly notified
threw the yellowsonofabitch
into a dungeon,where he died
Christ(of His mercy infinite)i pray to see;and Olaf,too
preponderatingly becauseunless statistics lie he was
more brave than me:more blond than you.
That's the bottom line: "There is some shit I will not eat."
Revere, 27 September 2006
Comments
You've quoted my favorite e.e. cummings line, and perhaps my favorite line of poetry, ever. I read that poem when I was in high school, right around the end of the Vietnam War, and the line has stuck with me for over 30 years.
Not a bad motto, when you think of it.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | September 28, 2006 08:45 AM
Julie: Mine, too.
Posted by: revere | September 28, 2006 09:17 AM
Oh, thank you. You know I've been awestruck at the fact they are even debating whether to legitimate torture and do away with habeas corpus. It's not only unconstitutional according to the charter of our country, it's unconstitutional according to the common law of the country we split from. So where do these "elected representatives of the people" get off abrogating rights we people have had going back hundreds of years? What I'm really trying to say is this: these jokers don't have the authority to take these rights away.
Thanks for talking about this stuff - I think most people are distracted by other crap and just don't have the education to know that we are in the midst of profound troubles.
Posted by: Steph | September 28, 2006 10:45 AM
A great many Americans are eating a great deal of shit, apparently willingly.
Posted by: Pilgrim | September 28, 2006 11:36 AM
I feel as if I am living in a surreal world in which our republic is swiftly turning into a neocon, facist state with references to "securing the homeland" and the congressional pussies that have been elected by us are succumbing to a set of ignorant, ballbusting dictators who shoplifted the election in 2004; all of them have decided it is fine to torture, to maim, to deprive anyone they want of liberty any time they want; it makes me nauseous, it makes me want to stand up and shout and scream. What is it going to take to wake up the American masses to remove these beings from power?
Posted by: Lrod | September 28, 2006 11:52 AM
I'm re-reading Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here." It is happening here before our very eyes.
Posted by: Pilgrim | September 28, 2006 12:03 PM
Ordinary Americans and their political representatives need to stop worrying about their "tough guy" images & start thinking about how these horrendous policies could come back and bite them and their loved ones as innocent citizens.
Don't think it couldn't happen to you! It happened to an innocent Canadian whose only crime was the misfortune of having been born in Syria. During an in-transit stop in New York on his way home from a family vacation, US authorities, acting on a faulty tip from our own Mounties, shipped him off to Syria to be imprisoned and tortured for a year.
Back in Canada now, he has finally been fully and unequivocally exonerated. He was a model citizen and there was never any basis for Canadian, American or Syrian authorities to suspect him of any crime or to put him through the nightmare he suffered.
This is all turning into a really bad movie. Someone's got to find the guts to stop it!
Posted by: Name | September 28, 2006 12:52 PM
I wonder aloud here if anyone has ever stood by during a torture session to see if it produces information? I can say that it produces a lot of information with all due respect to Revere. Some of it after day two or three is pretty worthless. I could get them to confess to the Kennedy assassination at that point. But do these people have the right to do it? Does anyone have the right to bomb, maim and kill thousands of anyones citizens either? Now there's the rub now isnt it?
Its all a matter of voltage and how and where you apply it. Its inhumane even in my opinion but I would do it to save anyone of you from being killed or having a WMD or a rail car with isocyanate being dumped in say-Chicago. One cup of this shit is worse than anything short of VX. Killed 50,000 in Bhopal. But yeah, I would stick the guy or girl over a burning fire to get the information to stop it from happening to the citizens of this country. Every other country maybe depending on whether they pissed me off lately or not. French would mean French Fried as they are on my shit list. If I knew a nuke was heading in their direction I might have to pause for a second or to to decide whether to tell them or not. I would, but still there is that second or two.
Colin Powell is right, they will do the same to our soldiers but they signed up to be all they could be and that was always an implied threat. None of the civilians ever signed up for anything and thats why the Dems are losing this ideological battle. Terrorists pull a knife, we pull a gun, they pull a gun, we pull out a 500 pounder. If necessary, it will go to the complete destruction of a country and I mean by the bright flash and the loud bang. Its only what 50,000 years of "evolution" has taught us.
Its gangland handling of a problem that could be ended by the police and militaries of every country on this planet. Arrest and try them for attempting crimes against humanity. Its only a crime if someone is around to try you for it.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | September 28, 2006 01:06 PM
Kruger,
While the execution (pun intended) of your point is poorly made, your point is made.
Is it an acceptable decision to sacrifice one for the good of many if we know 100% that the one has the information needed?
Is it an acceptable decision if we are mostly sure?
What is the ethical point at which you would sacrifice one for many? Does the ratio matter? Have you ever had to personally make that decision?
In U-571, understanably a military movie, Matthew McConaughey is not recommended for promtion by his supervisor even though he is good at his job and is liked by all. Bill Paxton tells him that he doesn't think that he could make the tough decision to send one of his men to death. Being Hollywood, the opportunity presents where McConaughey must seal off a compartment with alive men in it in order to save the submarine and others - with much fanfare and heart pounding music resolving to just a wrench beating on metal and crying.
Revere had posted on a Hypocratic oath previously for those in public health. I don't know if I could take the oath. I'm with Kruger in that, if I knew, not just suspected or had an ego to think, but if there was evidence that pointed that person X could save the lives of Y, hell yea I'd do what's necessary to get the best information.
I also agree that there is a difference in torture. Multi-organ failure [sic] is torture. Intentional pain is torture. But what about sleep deprivation? white noise? What exactly is torture? Is it ever useful? When would you, if ever, employ it?
Posted by: Darin | September 28, 2006 01:32 PM
It's not the politicians backing torture that upset me, it's the citizens. I already knew that politicians could be found to support burning of witches and sacrifice of babies to Baal, if that happened to fit the mood of the voters. I just had assumed that my fellow voters wouldn't ever get that kind of mood.
I used to wonder about how most Americans just ignored the nastiness of slavery, or how most Germans apparently accepted the mass murder of Jews and Gypsies and various other targets. Now I know, and I wish I didn't. It's not on the same scale, but I think it's the same process.
Posted by: albatross | September 28, 2006 01:32 PM
Let me be the first to say that this is the ugliest part of my former profession. Capture by the Nicaraguan Defense forces was a death sentence. I had a 10,000 USD bounty on my head the day I arrived there. My picture was on trees everywhere and I was a nobody. How'd they get it? I dunno. Torture for pissy information is ridiculous. If I had credible evidence that someone knew something big was about to happen, I would crack his skull wide open and in a heartbeat to get the information to prevent it. Problem is that we are trying to deal in a lawful way with an unlawful problem that has HUGE implications now. WMD's, home grown terrorists-Hell where is the effing SDS when you need a goat?
For both of you Alba and Darin I understand what you are saying because I have been on both sides of this fence. My problem is that once this starts, it will be hard to stop. But if they are beheading people on TV then I think its time to pull the gloves off. They do that for scare tactics and they havent got a clue as to what we really could do to them. They think they can continue to screw with a giant and not have him wake and stomp them. Once he is awake though it might take 2-3 generations to put him to sleep again.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | September 28, 2006 01:40 PM
Damn! Glad to be on the right side of the issue as opposed to the "wrong" side I am usually on with the Sunday sermonettes. IMO however you dress it up the administration still sets up a system of kangaroo courts with no legitimacy at all. Will anyone ever quote an "opinion" by a tribunal? Only in comparison with real opinions by real courts. What really irks me is that the old Soviet Union could have destroyed the United States as a functioning society in about 30 minutes yet we didn't have to create a police state to address the threat. Al-Quaida is nowhere near the league of the Soviets. On a good day they might nuke two or three cities but they could come nowhere close to destroying the whole country the way the Soviets could. Yet in fighting the cold war we didn't see the need to create a police state. Destroying a principle as fundamental as habeas corpus and then giving immunity to the people who do the torturing - never thought I would see the day in the United States.
Posted by: carl | September 28, 2006 02:54 PM
MRK said:
"Every other country maybe depending on whether they pissed me off lately or not."
I think this is illuminating of the arbitrary nature of decisions about who, when, how much to torture, and the bias that can come into play in making them.
Posted by: Edmund | September 28, 2006 02:55 PM
You wanna see torture?
Watch a 35 year old ovarian cancer patient slowly be whittled away surgery by surgery (10 should be enough), only to be rewarded with chemo and radiation. And then find out it has returned.
Watch a child die a slow lingering death from a congenital heart defect only to get a heart transplant that mandates massive daily doses of drugs, which swells them to twice their size. Watch them get condylomas (warts) that cover every inch of exposed skin, (including face, eyelids) because of their immunosuppression. Watch them grow hair over their entire body. Watch them grow to hate these changes so much they attempt suicide a few years later.
Every day, as part of my profession, I must cause pain to (hopefully) relieve pain. Would I accept another causing pain if I knew it might save a community? Hell, yes!
Our soldiers are being killed and drug through the streets in triumph. Innocents are beheaded. Charity workers are murdered. Women are beaten, mutilated and murdered for perceived offenses...at a whim. Placation is looked at as weakness. Rolling over and exposing your underbelly is an open invitation for eviseration. This is a war, not a tea party.
Where has all the testosterone gone???!!! I want some goal-oriented, kick-a$$, get the job done professional soldiers to protect our assets. And if I ever need my hearth and home protected from marauding invaders, I want a Hell's Angel, John Wayne, Terminator combo to do the job, not a pacifist, afraid to get dirty type.
Being "nice" doesn't stop cruel behavior at it's delivery. Instead, it is a catalyst for more cruelty. It's seen as a sign of weakness that increases the power trip. Ask any woman facing a rapist. Ask any child facing their tormentor. Ask any reporter or charity worker about to be beheaded.
Nice only works with "nice" people.
Posted by: nsthesia | September 28, 2006 02:59 PM
Sorry, Kruger, but it just doesn't work that way. The circumstances where we "know X," and we want to extract "Y" from the person that we are torturing will not begin to match the number of situations in which we know neither "X," nor "Y," and we simply set about extracting the information (which may likely reside entirely in our own minds) through any means available. The Bush junta employed this approach when they selectively "tortured" the necessary information out of the available intelligence, to lead us into the endless quagmire in Iraq. They "knew" that the justification for falsifying the information was there...and that's all that they needed. This won't be any different.
You can consider this, on the most immediate, material level, as a very crude form of "saber rattling;" only there is no one there, in any real sense, to rattle the saber at. The other side cannot profit by capturing "high profile" targets to interrogate. Why bother...they already know everything about us that they need to know. So we can expect them to routinely torture anyone unfortunate enough to fall into their hands. For that matter, what could conceivably keep them from taking a number of hostages to persuade us to forgo passing the "Torture Bill?" But, why should they? We're giving them one more very effective recruiting tool; why in the world would they refuse to accept it? Our vulnerabilities are legion; and no one can possibly convince me that we remain "safe" as a consequence of the tireless efforts of the bozo in the White House.
The opposition tortures without any pretense at obtaining information; the practice is simply engaged in as a matter of course. It won't be long before it will be utterly impossible to distinguish between "us," and "them." We make the assumption that there is much to be learned -- from our point of view -- through the employment of torture; I personally doubt the efficacy of this approach, never mind the ethical and moral problems that are presented. There's no "profit" in torturing your suspects (regardless of how much information you may have) if they have been provided with only enough information to carry out their specific assignment. And whatever information you obtain will likely be compensated for by an adjustment in the opposition's tactics or strategy. If you were the opposition, how would you react? And with this Administration the incompetence factor is so monumental that if you lay the information right in their lap, they still fail to do anything about it. This country is currently being run by the Keystone Kops; and now they want to go rushing around -- in their Model-T's -- with a legal imprimatur that empowers them to snatch up anyone they wish, and torture out of them whatever they desire. In the name of protecting liberty.
Anyone who thinks that we have repudiated the practice of torture in Iraq is a complete fool. When the Chimp says it's okay, then it's okay. No arguments. Are we winning yet? Are we going to torture our way out of Iraq? Is this a new (Administration) slant on "cut and run?"
It's the "soul" of this country, that is now being "tortured" by these pigs.
Posted by: Dylan | September 28, 2006 03:03 PM
I'm sick and tired of Democrats compromising on values because they think it will win them votes. Partly because it's lame and disgusting. Mostly because it will not win votes. They want to look "strong on terror" by just rolling over and going with whatever the Republicans are for at the moment, because they completely misunderstand what it means to be strong.
Strong is standing up for a principle no matter the consequences. Strong is saying, "I'm against torture, and I refuse to support it or accomodate it, even if doing so costs me the election."
For all the talk of the American public being brainless sheep (and I admit it's an easy conclusion to reach, given the last five years), they know the difference between real strength and the fake stuff. And for as weak and scared as the Republicans are, lashing out wildly and jousting with straw terrorists, the Democrats are painfully obviously weaker and more scared: too scared to say what they believe.
Well, if that's the way it is, to Hell with the lot of them. But, mark my words, the angry liberals will make a comeback. It may not be in 2006, but it only takes a look around to see that plenty of people are sick of hitching their wagons to these timorous asses. It's only a matter of time before a the movement either kicks these turkeys out of their entrenched positions in the Democratic leadership or puts forth a real third-party alternative that supplants the Democrats entirely.
Posted by: Joshua | September 28, 2006 03:23 PM
We're a bit culturally disadvantaged 'round here because we don't watch television. We do have a Netflix sub and we recently plowed through a season of 24 on DVD. I was astounded to see such a propaganda pile purported as timely entertainment. The very sort of stuff that makes the populace willing to agree to the barbaric trend now being consolidated in the Congress.
TJ had it right:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
I doubt he had in mind that this refreshment should first be tortured though it might have been common in the times and certainly the tribes of Abraham have elevated it to a sacred concept with the promise of hell.
I'm beginning to have a Pogo like intimation that we have met the enemy of freedom and he is us. We seem to go through this revolving door every few generations (variations on the Alien and Sedition theme). I hope the door drops us out safely one more time. But if this is not to be, consider that TJ also thought we might need a rev every 20 years or so. On which side of the Memphis insurgency do ya think you'll land, Randy?
Posted by: tympanachus | September 28, 2006 04:46 PM
nsthesia said:
"Every day, as part of my profession, I must cause pain to (hopefully) relieve pain. Would I accept another causing pain if I knew it might save a community? Hell, yes!"
Well that's it then. Let's just go kill 'em all and make this world a safer place.
Yes, I built a strawman, but for comic effect. Just as I hope you intended your own post to be: for comic effect.
"Being "nice" doesn't stop cruel behavior at it's [sic] delivery."
So you propose we torture prisoners in order to deter the actions of our military opponents? Why do you think this will make any difference for the best?
Posted by: Edmund | September 28, 2006 05:14 PM
Again, i hear all of your comments but I will comment again on this. The Supreme Court in the 1940's (a Dem Court) ruled that POW's do not have the right to challenge their captivity and broke it down by their combatant status. In fact ladies and gentlemen you are talking about the lowest on the totem pole for official status in the "war." I say again, "WAR." They can be shot on sight for not having a uniform on. Well, there we go again. Trying apply a law situation to one that it doesnt work on.
These people hide guns and bombs and then blow people up or shoot them in the equivalent of a drive by. They attack our troops. They will if we pull out be on our doorstep in months. You will of course disagree. I in the past submitted that they just didnt kill enough people in the WTC's for everyone to get the picture. Nor have we had enough people with the cajonies to do something about what is happening in the world.
So once again America is in the wrong. If so then why arent middle class Muslims not standing up to stop these things that are happening in the world? In fact they are allowing their religion to be hijacked by a bunch of nut cases. So what are supposed to do, negotiate? So far that has gotten us zip but dead people and or hijackings, or embassies blown up and we are supposed to ignore military actions and just call the police. That REALLY works out there. Works great in LA too.
I wonder Edmund, Carl, Joshua what your reaction would be to having your whole town wiped out by an attack? Dylan you too. I am watching a scenario that was put in front of me at the War College years ago unfolding. Its almost surreals. Everything you see in this world is about to change if we dont take them on. But by taking them on we infuriate them more. So which doctrine would you like to have? We are outnumbered, and shortly going to be on a regional parity with them for weapons. What will be your reaction when N. Korea launches a nuke at Japan or the West Coast? Same with Iran against Israel, or Paris, maybe New York. Are we still going to have those we gotta treat them with the laws that didnt work in the countries they came from people saying they got rights? Habeas Corpus is more like Having Corpses. Hey lets go get Jimmy Carter... Yeah thats the ticket! In the end even Mr. Peanut went to the military option and because he quarterbacked it from the White House, it was doomed before it started.
You guys are no longer in the majority and while I wish the world you want to live in existed, it doesnt for all of the reasons you allude to. Politics, corruption, money, power, women, sex, guys, and whatever you want to label it with. It's not going to change a thing. By the way, the law enabling the President to do what he wanted has just passed. It will be on his desk in the a.m.
I am sorry for the lack of Utopia in the world. If you think diplomacy is going to work be sure to board the next plane for Baghdad and run up to the Falujah triangle and tell them that you think they are right. All I am saying is that screw them ALL IF IT SAVES ONE AMERICAN OR OUR ALLIES LIVES! Plain, simple and to the point. I would use everything in the arsenal that I could think of to protect Americans. Does that make me wrong for wanting to protect the interests of the US and its citizens? Kill them all? Guys I would do it in a heartbeat if I thought it would do any good.
This is one that God will have to decide I think as to who was right because our political system gives to many rights to those who take away ours. Pendulum has swung. Hope we dont get tagged, but ultimately we will because diplomacy hasnt worked at all. They tag us, we tag them harder. He who is standing at the end wins. God sorts out the rest.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | September 28, 2006 05:58 PM
Randy: We are talking at each other across a great divide, so I won't try to convince you about what I cannot accept. I wish there were more people on both sides standing up and staying "enough," including apparently most middle class americans who don't mind torture, have wiped out whole towns and have their own Randy Kruegers saying the same thing in another language. If I could put you all in a room and let you fight it out I would, but I can't.
I don't want to be associated with torturers. There is no excuse for it. The "ticking time bomb" scenario is a fraud and we have already been misled in the past two years alone by information extracted by torture even if that were a valid reason.
I'm not going there. Not now. Not ever. I'm not asking for Utopia. I want release from this horrible dystopia our leaders have perpertrated. We aren't respected in the world because we don't deserve respect.
Posted by: revere | September 28, 2006 06:33 PM
Write, don't call or e-mail, you local newspaper and list the votes your 3 Federal legislators cast on this issue. In my case, I expect both Senators to vote "Aye", and my Representative already did. I told them not to, but they chose to ignore me.
Now, I will write to my news outlets, list their votes, and tell the editor (and hopefully the world) that they voted to support the imprisonment and torture or our children and grandchildren. I will say that these people, who swore to uphold, preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, have now voted to eliminate one of the most basic rights upon which this Nation and that Constitution was built; one that goes back to the 14th Century, and more recently to the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679; one of the rights that makes this America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_of_1679
The only thing that separates us from our dispicable enemies is our morality. It is exactly that which this bill sacrifices.
Posted by: ijustcantkeep still | September 28, 2006 07:28 PM
If nothing else Revere, fear commands respect. As for the torture the bill that was approved in the last few hours it doesnt approve of torture, but it does prohibits access to civilian courts by enemy combatants.
Every few dozen years or so we have to dust our military off and go out and get the respect for our government. Every time we allowed the military to go after N. Vietnam in the 60's they wanted to negotiate suddenly. But to get that respect we lose lives in the process. Daniel Ortega in the 80's decided to launch an attack with 500,000 troops in an undeclared war to make a move on Mexico and Hondurdas. Why? Because he lost his fear and respect for us and doubted our resolve. Six days later he regained his fear and respect after there were continous B-52 strikes that took his forces down to about 100,000. He was deposed a little over two years later. Democracy allowed for free elections.
You dont have to associate with torturers Revere. Its prohibited by law and as I said, the law is for those who obey it. Havent seen any of them in front of any courts yet. Now they are going to go before military tribunals. It will be harsh and yes if found guilty they wont be tortured, they will be hanged. I personally like beheadings on Iranian TV myself so they can as they say see that the sword cuts both ways.
As for the law, you break it consistently in the face of threat of force and you are either mad or dont care. I fear the latter. Therefore I respect my enemies and they had better start respecting us else the outcome for them will be far more severe if there is a WMD attack on US soil. God help them if they are dumb enough to do it. Will we survive as a nation? Certainly, but genocide is not a term that would cover the capabilities that would be unleashed upon them.
It is now incumbent on this nation to rise up and cut the cancer from this planet that is starting to grow. There will be major organ damage and the patient will be severely disfigured as a result but it will survive. There is a chance at plastic surgery later. I would never say you are a cut and run type Revere, I have seen you take on some really hairy types here and give it back to them. On the other hand though this war began years before any of the current Presidents and it goes back to one key incident and that was the taking of the hostages in Iran. It should have been met with force and a lot of it. You and I are old enough to remember it. They realized then that we were paper tigers and we could be had. Once that got into their heads they saw they could take on the Russians in Afghanistan albeit with our help.
The key incident was our downfall and the causes were many but the cited incident was a humanitarian one of accepting the Shah into the country for cancer treatment. France wouldnt take him, Germany the same, Israel said okay but the thought was that it would have been even worse than us taking him. This to me indicated the bent of radical Muslims and even our own very well trained Osama is a product of years of the Cold War and we are getting what we paid for. WWIII ended the day of the fall of the S. Union. WWIV began the day they took Americans hostage and our country didnt help them. They no longer fear us because we never respond completely and that would include knocking out mosques where they hide, bombing entire cities, and above all deciding who is going to be at the top of the food chain here. We did this flattened earth policy in WWII so where are our balls now?
You will disagree of course and I fully understand your position. Hell I agree with much of what you say but it wont change the outcome. The dice have already been rolled and the answer is boxcars. We are going to have to light up a lot of people with various types of ammunition to get back to the balance of terror we enjoyed during the Cold War. After a while they will see one or two types of light. One is to beat the swords into plowshares light, the other is a blinding one that in effect does what was done without compunction in WWII and that is kill civilians and lots of them. Have to kill civilians to get at the bad guys. No one in the military will want to do it, but it just becomes necessary. War is no longer an all out thing. Its a negotiation about acceptable targets, whether its a historic site or a religious post. So what. Dust and dead men dont shoot at Americans and thats my point. If we have to we will do them all.
Hang in there Revere and keep beating me up when you think appropriate. I know its not personal as some would make it. Its ideology. I appreciate your and the others positions more than you know. I just feel that because of current events that more severe methods are needed. I remain one of the necessary evils in this world and even with my departure from the military my own SEI codes require that I be "maintained" for future use. You will know the pooh pooh has hit the rotary grinder if they have to make that phone call to me.
Bests.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | September 28, 2006 07:53 PM