by Mike Whitney
www.dissidentvoice.org âPeople will definitely dieâŠ. Bobby Sands petitioned the British government to stop the illegitimate internment of Irishmen without trialâŠ. Nobody should believe for one moment that my brothers here have less courage.â
-- Binyam Mohammed, British prisoner at Guantanamo Bay I doubt you have the courage, but I hope you all die anyways. When Senate hearings convene this week for Supreme Court candidate John Roberts, letâs hope that they focus on the hunger strike taking place at Guantanamo Bay. It was Robertâs ruling in Rumsfeld vs. Hamdan that hastened a massive 200-man hunger strike that is now in its second month and has hospitalized at least 15 inmates. He just got my vote.
The prisoners are demanding that they be given the opportunity to challenge the terms of their detention in a court of law, a principle that Roberts does not support. He ruled in the Hamdan case that the President was not constrained by international law and that âthe Geneva Conventions do not create judicially enforceable rights.â Roberts ignores the fact that the United States is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and must comply with its provisions for the humane treatment of prisoners as well as offering prisoners the Conventionâs protection âuntil such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.â Rumsfeldâs handpicked military courts do not meet these requirements, and have been rejected by prominent legal organizations and human rights groups alike. You mean, like the Supreme Court? Letâs be clear -- the 500 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are innocent. That is not my contention, but the belief of everyone who still accepts the fundamental principle of American jurisprudence, that men are âinnocent until proven guilty.â The inmates have been deprived of due process of law, so we must presume that they are innocent. The language invented at the Defense Department -- âterroristâ, âenemy combatantâ, âinsurgentâ -- should not cloud our reasoning or undermine our commitment to fair play. The prisoners should be allowed to defend themselves according to internationally accepted standards of justice. ...and then fed to the Gitmo sharks.
Roberts does not believe that captives in the war on terror have any rights whatsoever. His ruling in Rumsfeld vs. Hamdan confers absolute authority on the President to imprison suspects indefinitely without any legal process in place to challenge their imprisonment. But, if this is true, than why do we need courts or judges at all? Why not simply resolve these issues by executive fiat? Condellezza! My signet ring and the wax, please!
Robertsâ ruling has earned him an appointment to the Supreme Court; a souvenir for endorsing the supreme powers of the President. But, his ambition comes at a cost. 200 or more victims of his verdict are presently starving themselves to death demanding the right to have their cases heard in court. The scene at Guantanamo has been described as âdireâ by defense attorneys for the detainees with gruesome descriptions of prisoners âvomiting blood or collapsing in their cells.â Boohoohoo. Where's my violin...
The Defense Department has tried to conceal the details of the hunger strike and has prevented the media and the Red Cross from visiting the prisoners. Guantanamo needs to be opened up so that we can see the consequences of Robertsâ judicial philosophy. If Roberts is willing to rubberstamp a policy that promotes the cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners then the public should be aware of it. I'm pissed off that they're there. I'm pissed off they're still breathing.
Roberts has argued that, âThe presidentâs authority under the laws of our nation to try enemy combatants is a vital part of the global war on terror.â Fine. Roberts should be given every opportunity to defend his theories on justice as long as the sick and emaciated victims of his philosophy are paraded through the Senate Rotunda for everyone to observe. Sure. Put it on Pay Per View...
American justice is an oxymoron. Under Bush, there is neither justice nor a system; just the willful conduct of bullies who act according to the most cynical impulses. Roberts is the embodiment of the present paradigm: a man whose adult life has been devoted to secret organizations, like the Federalist Society, whose sole purpose is the dismantling of legal protections and civil liberties for the common man. He is the poster boy of the new world order. Ooooooooh...the Federalist Society. Do they have cool black helicopters? The Muslim prisoners who are resisting this regime of lawlessness -- some who have even ripped the feeding tubes from their arms -- are heroes in the truest sense of the word. They have put their own lives on the line for a just cause, demanding that they be treated with the same respect and dignity deserving of every man. Now, they face an agonizing death fighting for the very same principles that are written into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Mahmoud Al-Jailbirdi... Theyâve earned our admiration, and they have it. Ha!
#1
If he could prove that we were starving them, there would be a very small point in his argument.
But voluntary anorexia on their part ain't Rumsfeld's fault, Mikey. Don't forget, Maggie Thatcher let Bobby Sands starve himself to death. His death accomplished bupkis, just like these "martyrs" deaths will. They probably won't even get their 72 virgins, either.
#2
Theyâve earned our admiration, and they have it. What you talkin' 'bout Willis? Mikey...by our do you mean your other 16 personalities. Definitly Loony Toons. Worst case of Stockholm syndrom I've seen
#5
I read that they are being force fed by tube. I don't see the point? At the risk of seeming mean I say let them die. 200? That would be 200 less people to house, cloth, feed, and guard. The LLL KoolAid drinkers can't seem to get any traction with the voters on this issue, I wonder why? (snicker)
#6
Just saw the Looney Tunes pic in the article. Too bad I'm now spelling challenged (my earlier post) since the advent of computers. Damn you Bush...It's all your fault that Johnny can't spell
#8
"a policy that promotes the cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners"
how is a hunger strike looked upon as cruel and unusual treatment? They're doing it to themselves.
Thank God the red cross and media have been prevented here.
Posted by: Jan ||
09/16/2005 19:00 Comments ||
Top||
Ten years ago I thought politics was misguided. But the events of the past decade--indeed, of the past 10 or a dozen decades--have proven me wrong. The sum and substance of politics was expressed in the 1860s by Nicholas Chernyshevskii, a prescient Russian radical: "Man is god to man." And politics violates the other nine commandments as well. Politics could hardly function without bearing false witness. Likewise, without taking the Lord's name in vain. This is especially true given that, in politics, the Lord who is so loosely sworn by is Mankind. In the modern era politics has taken the place of mere tyranny. The result has been more killing in one century than in all the preceding centuries combined. Covetousness and stealing define redistributive politics. Without redistribution politics would have no political support. Graven image is as good a name as any for the fiat money by which politics operates. Politics' insistence upon involvement in every human activity, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is more anti-Sabbatarian than golf. The Social Security system is no way to honor thy father and thy mother. And as for adultery, there was, and there may be still, Bill Clinton.
To claim that one's political activities are the will of God is to worship Beelzebub, as Osama bin Laden has demonstrated. To loudly call for separation of church and state is to miss the point. Why is there never a call for separation of state and coven?
Even to be "politically informed and engaged" is probably to be of the devil's party. Tune in to that most politically informed and engaged network, NPR, and listen to the evident relish with which its newscasts and current events programs recount misfortune, inequity, and suffering worldwide. The unspoken gleeful message is, "More occasions for more politics!" . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
09/16/2005 06:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
From Tech Central Station.....
As usual, the MSM slept through the protein part of the story, while they were exploring the interior recesses of their posteriors. Blair gets it: that Kyoto is just a wealth distribution scam to sink the producing countries like the US, while China and India get a pass. Everyone must work together to deal with the technical problems.
NEW YORK - Kyoto Treaty RIP. That's not the headline in any newspaper this morning emerging from the first day of the Clinton Global Initiative, but it could have been -- and should have been.
Onstage with former president Bill Clinton at a midtown Manhattan hotel ballroom, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he was going to speak with "brutal honesty" about Kyoto and global warming, and he did. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had some blunt talk, too.
Blair, a longtime supporter of the Kyoto treaty, further prefaced his remarks by noting, "My thinking has changed in the past three or four years." So what does he think now? "No country," he declared, "is going to cut its growth." That is, no country is going to allow the Kyoto treaty, or any other such global-warming treaty, to crimp -- some say cripple -- its economy. Insert "Master of the Obvious image here. Only non-producing loons and the naive would support this treaty, because it sounds sexy and has the word "environment" in the language.
Looking ahead to future climate-change negotiations, Blair said of such fast-growing countries as India and China, "They're not going to start negotiating another treaty like Kyoto." India and China, of course, weren't covered by Kyoto in the first place, which was one of the fatal flaws in the treaty. But now Blair is acknowledging the obvious: that after the current Kyoto treaty -- which the US never acceded to -- expires in 2012, there's not going to be another worldwide deal like it.
So what will happen instead? Blair answered: "What countries will do is work together to develop the science and technologyâŠ.There is no way that we are going to tackle this problem unless we develop the science and technology to do it." Bingo! That's what eco-realists have been saying all along, of course -- that the only feasible way to deal with the issue of greenhouse gases and global warming is through technological breakthroughs, not draconian cutbacks.
Blair concluded with a rhetorical question-and-answer: "How do we move forward, post-Kyoto? It can only be done by the major players coming together and pooling their resources, to find their way to come together." Technological Coalition of the Willing, so to speak, i.e., problem solvers, not bureaucrats.
Interestingly, these words from Blair, addressing an audience of a thousand at the Sheraton just a few blocks north of Times Square, failed to get any pickup in the media. Even The New York Times, published just down the street, ran a story that dwelt on the star power in the room, including King Abdullah of Jordan, Jesse Jackson, and George Stephanopoulos. "Isn't this awesome?" said one participant, and those words seemed to reflect fully the Times' take on the event. Typical head-up-@$$ and laziness on the part of the MSM...SOP.
For its part The Washington Post offered this bland headline: "Clinton Gathers World Leaders Nonpartisan Conference Focuses on Global Improvement," making no mention of Blair's global warming remarks. As for TV coverage, there wasn't much of that either; on CNN Headline News, Christi Paul said, admiringly, "former President Clinton is still looking to get things done," noting that Clinton garnered "more than $200 million in pledges" to address world problems. So what is Slick Willie's fee for the scamming fundraising?
Ironically, some of those pledges concerned global warming. The 42nd President kicked off his wonky-glitzy extravaganza by announcing that the event would be "climate neutral." That is, the CGI -- or, more precisely, a couple of fatcats who ponied up money to get some onstage face time with Clinton -- would "offset" the CO2 produced by this event by "investing in renewable energy projects in Native American lands and in rural Nigerian villages." But such eco-pious symbolism aside, the real news of the conference so far has come from Blair. Feel-good folks with money to burn.
The Prime Minister, has long been pushing, of course, for a binding international treaty on climate change. It's one part of the Eurolefty agenda he has traditionally kept faith with. In a policy-setting speech in September 2004, for example, he laid out an ambitious agenda, declaring that "Kyoto is only the first step but provides a solid foundation for the next stage of climate diplomacy." Throw-away line. You get a pass, Tony, *sigh*.
Indeed, the widely held view was that Blair would "cash in" his geopolitical chits -- that is, those he gained with George W. Bush over his support for the Iraq war, in order to get the Texan to sign on to some form of Kyoto. But even before the Gleneagles G-8 summit in July, it seemed pretty clear that Bush was not going to go along with Blair's deal; in fact, Bush rebuffed Blair. Nonetheless, as recently as a September 4 op-ed in The Financial Times, Blair still sounded optimistic, declaring, "We made substantial progress on climate change at Gleneagles." But now Blair has buried Kyoto a little bit deeper. One of these days, the press will notice.
And there was some potentially significant news from Condi Rice, who was also onstage all this time, sitting with Clinton and Blair in an Oprah-like format. Speaking of world energy policy for the future, Rice said, "Nuclear power is going to have to be part of the mix." Imagine that -- nuclear power! That's been the Bush administration view all along, of course, but the W. folks haven't gotten very far in resuscitating the industry. Yet if Blair is starting to show realism on Kyoto, he and other leaders around the world will see that nukes have to be part of the energy solution.
Indeed, Rice added, "France generates something like 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power." That's probably the first time in ages that a Bush administration official has had anything positive to say about France. Rice acknowledged "proliferation risks" from nuclear power, but made it a clear that something had to be done. "In the fast-developing world," she concluded, "we have to find a way to leverage all power [sources]."
For his part, Clinton was his usual self, declaring to Rice, "In general, I agree with you about that" -- without ever saying what he was agreeing with. And the 42nd President gave no reaction to Blair's provocative Kyoto revisionism. He does not care. Got other things on his mind.
In fact, nobody seems to have reacted to what Blair said. But that's OK. TCS readers have this significant scoop. And as for the rest of the world, it will soon understand that Blair has effectively pulled the plug on Kyoto. They will be slow but they will wake up and realize that the Kyoto Feel-Good doc is a dead skunk in the middle of the road.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/16/2005 15:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lol, Blair pissing on the Clinton Parade of Stars. Almost defines sweet irony. I guess Tony is off the Clinton's A-List, now. I hope our UK cousins are as surprised and happy about this as we are... is Tony goin' thru them changes? Or is it just a mid-life crisis which will culminate in cutting loose from that MoonBat he's married to and a fling on the Wild Side? Lol.
#2
I think the issue here is that voters are hurting from rising energy prices and starting to understand that Kyoto is a large factor in those prices rises especially of electricity although with a large flow on effect to the price of natural gas.
Conservative commentators have had a high old time pointing at the city of New Orleans's government's bumbling performance during the Katrina catastrophe. Mark Steyn, in describing the city's black population as being a "wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party," might as well have described every institution in Louisiana. Rush Limbaugh has said, many times, many ways, "This is what you get with decades of liberal rule."
But, for a whole lot of people, and I would have been one of them at one time in my life, New Orleans represented everything a city ought to be. Leave aside for the moment how it got that way. Lots of cities -- and I will mention more than a few -- offer the same advantages.
In New Orleans, it was safe to be poor. You could live without stigma without striving. And lots of people liked that just fine.
I SEARCHED REALTOR.COM for "New Orleans." The listings appear not to have been updated since before the storm. There are 1,430 residences for sale under $200,000, and 330 rental units for under $1,000 -- many much cheaper than that. I've done a lot of Internet real estate searching. For the usual city in the U.S., putting in those two top prices would yield close to no result at all. In New Orleans, many of those residences are shacks. Many, as well, are probably in high-crime enclaves. But you accept all that, if you want to take it easy, the bathtub in the kitchen, the cracks in the floors, the need for security gates. You don't own much, in any case.
A comfy poor city offers lots of employment of a certain kind -- the kind that doesn't pay much attention to what are called "resume enhancements." The kind that doesn't require a resume at all, just a certain brass and confidence. Restaurants, hotels, entertainment and the arts, tourist services, gambling, small family businesses. New Orleans had those aplenty. And it offered, as well, a lively commerce in the soft crimes, the ones police don't come down on so hard, marijuana and prostitution, notably. And you were unlikely to get busted for hanging out with no visible means of support.
For those not inclined to work, or not to work much, an easy city should offer a relaxed welfare establishment and unemployment office. You shouldn't need a car, or, if you do, there should be a plentiful local supply of warm weather junkers, along with a relaxed insurance and registration regime. Add to all that a lively local arts scene and fabulous food, and you've got poor heaven.
IT IS ALMOST LAUGHABLE to put it down that way. But there are such cities. Sections of many cities have always been that way. Writers and artists have romanticized and memorialized them. Edward Hopper painted "Night Hawks." George Orwell wrote Down and Out in Paris and London. In On the Road, Jack Kerouac limned Venice Beach in Los Angeles and North Beach in San Francisco. Paul Simon, in "The Boxer," wrote, "...searchin' out the poorer quarters where the ragged people go, lookin' for the places only they would know." When I worked in a hotel band in Anchorage, I found a vast population of folk who drifted around a big triangle, Seattle to Anchorage to Honolulu, working in hotels and bars and restaurants. "Lord, I was born a ramblin' man."
You need one thing above all to maintain the at-ease poor lifestyle. The grown-ups, the straight people, have to be in charge. When you turn on the water or the light switch, you want them to work. If you get hit by a bus, you would hope the emergency services wouldn't simply leave you lying there.
If you elect drifters and grifters to positions of leadership, sooner or later you'll get in big trouble. Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin might have made perfectly good waiters or saxophone players.
And of course, in describing the easeful poor lifestyle, I have left out one thing: It is an economy. Economies work with other economies (Wall Street with Greenwich Village). Economies change. Boston's North End gentrifies. Paris sprouts miles of blasted high-rise suburban slums filled with angry Muslim youth. The Big Easy didn't have much of any other economy than the lazy. And it was not enough by itself.
Poor New Orleans. It was nice while it lasted.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/16/2005 15:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Very long article on how Islam has been changed into a blood-thirsty idol worshiping cult. Just a few tidbits:
The Romans and the Greeks, assigned to the task of formulating the creeds of Christianity, could not compromise with only one image of god. The monotheistic theme of Judaism was galvanized into their traditional belief in the plurality of gods. Consequently, they had induced three images into one Jesus and he turned out to be the composite of "father", "son" and the "holy ghost". Finally, the Nicene Creed was formalized and it reads: "We believe in one God, .... Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, .....God from God, Light from Light,......". After all, thousands of years' beliefs and practices in the plurality of gods could not just vanish away in thin air. The vestments of the priests, the use of incense and holy water in purification, burning of candles, light before the altars are still the reminiscence of the pagan Rome.
More with a similar blueprint, the companions of Prophet Muhammad, emerged from a pagan society and geared to worshipping 360 idols in the Kaba, could not compromise with a religion with just one unseen God. Despite being forbidden repeatedly in the Koran, their tentacles of idolatry, soaked with outpouring adoration for Muhammad, had intricately tangled up both God and his messenger together in the formulation of Islamic creeds, and practices. Eventually, these idolatry-creeds reshaped Islam after Muhammad.
Perhaps, a vast number of Muslims would get a thunderous shock after realizing that their intense and often blind adoration to Muhammad is nothing short of an idolatry - if not identical to the Hindus, Buddhists and the Catholic-Christians. The passionate admiration for Muhammad is often contrary to Koranic value and decency.
------
The superfluous adoration for Muhammad even defies the Koranic backing. The Koran contains several verses that dictate the Muslims not to distinguish amongst the Prophets (Koran 004.152 and 002.136). There is also a reward that God has promised to those who would refrain from making any distinction. But the force of idol-worshipping instinct often supersedes the Koranic teaching. Obviously, if anyone does not believe Muhammad as the greatest of all the Prophets, would surely be rewarded - not by God but by those Madrassa-trained Jihadi Muslims with tortures, mutilation and even painful death.
-----
Eventually, a theological nightmare crept into Islam that gave rise to fatwa, apostasy, stoning to death, honour-killing and the euphoria of exclusive sex with 70 virgins in the heaven. Despite the fact that the existing theology often contradicts the Koran itself, the forces of the Muhammadi-cult, based on the corrupted contents of the Hadith, shamefully dominate Islam today and are the driving forces behind the "Sharia Laws".
-----
The Gospels' authors - Mark, Luke and John were not disciples of Jesus. His companions were mostly illiterate fishermen. So were the companions of the Prophet - illiterate slaves, servants and Bedouins. Anas was a household servant. Bellal, a liberated slave, who initiated the wordings of the prayer call (Azan). Huraira, the tricky one, had slaves of his own. He lived close to the Prophet in Medina for some deceitful motives. Amazingly, he authored over 3,500 hadith in less than two years of his kinship with the prophet. Evidently, the credentials of these companions were neither endowed with genius scholarship, nor did they have exalted credibility. It is so unfortunate that their words, collected nearly two hundred years after their death, formed the backbone of Islamic paradigm that motivates the Jihadi Muslims to kill in the name of "Islam" that also means "peace", besides "submission". Interesting article.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/16/2005 11:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
His description of the doctrine of the Trinity shows lack of research. I hope his description of Muhammadanism is not equally poor.
But he certainly has a point, whether he backs it up accurately or not: Curse Allah, and be laughed at. Curse Muhammad and die. So who do they most revere?
Posted by: James ||
09/16/2005 12:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
1. Note the author lives in the UK. I assume he writes with a pen name also.
2. The problem of worshipping Mohammad is more than just a problem of idolatry. Per the traditional biog, Mohammad ordered numberous executions, ordered attacks against tribes based on minor grievances of individuals in the tribes. Tortured and killed POWs, etc. When muslims say they are making Mohammad their model, you have to think, "Ewwwwww."
#4
*Shakes head* One can probably see how Islam, advocating Jihad and giving permission to kill The Other, became a world religion. 100 years after Mohammed died, they were fighting the Franks in Southern France, a Loooooong way from Mecca.
But this clueless idiot hasn't got the brain cells to figure out how 10 supposedly equally clueless and red-necked rejects came up with a religion that eventually became a world religion preaching a message that resident Troll Aris Katsaris told me was hopelessly naive, being designed against self-preservation. Christians were still doing footraces with Lions 100 years after Jesus' "death".
Very quick announcement âen passantâ; while we are in the middle of incredible carnage â just how low can humans ( or subhumans!) sink, it is mind boggling. Can you imagine the criminality and beastliness of these killers? And it is mostly the poor people who are paying the price. Murdering day laborers and dragging people out of their beds at 4 a.m. to shoot them in cold blood, whose sole fault was that they happened to be of a certain sect, just shows what kind of beasts we are facing. Here is faschism, racism and bigotry par excellence for you. The scenes are horrific and heart rending and would break the most insensitive of hearts.
And how many times have I said and repeated, secure Baghdad, safeguard Baghdad, provide safe haven for the people and soldiers in Baghdad, lock up Baghdad, it is the Battle of Baghdad etc. etc.? In fact I started this blog mainly to emphasize this point. Still vehicles move about freely without serious attempts at identification and control. Still people move in and out of the capital and infiltrators can come and occupy houses and neighborhoods without any serious risk at being found out and apprehended. It does not come as surprise to me in the least that these bastards can perpetrate their abominable atrocities at will since they can come and hide in the capital quite easily.
I am not belittling the importance and usefulness of the many campaigns in the provinces; they are both necessary and effective, but without securing the ground after these operations and without securing the rear and the center (which is the Baghdad area), one is just wasting the fruits of victories. Also the Iraqi and coalition forces have caught many and inflicted heavy damage on the terrorists. But that is simply not enough and very serious rethinking of the whole strategy is required.
I hope to be able to tell you more about my thinking later.
Salaam
Posted by: DanNY ||
09/16/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
When Senate hearings convene this week for Supreme Court candidate John Roberts, letâs hope that they focus on the hunger strike taking place at Guantanamo Bay. It was Robertâs ruling in Rumsfeld vs. Hamdan that hastened a massive 200-man hunger strike that is now in its second month and has hospitalized at least 15 inmates. 
Ten years ago I thought politics was misguided. But the events of the past decade--indeed, of the past 10 or a dozen decades--have proven me wrong. The sum and substance of politics was expressed in the 1860s by Nicholas Chernyshevskii, a prescient Russian radical: "Man is god to man." And politics violates the other nine commandments as well. Politics could hardly function without bearing false witness. Likewise, without taking the Lord's name in vain. This is especially true given that, in politics, the Lord who is so loosely sworn by is Mankind. In the modern era politics has taken the place of mere tyranny. The result has been more killing in one century than in all the preceding centuries combined. Covetousness and stealing define redistributive politics. Without redistribution politics would have no political support. Graven image is as good a name as any for the fiat money by which politics operates. Politics' insistence upon involvement in every human activity, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is more anti-Sabbatarian than golf. The Social Security system is no way to honor thy father and thy mother. And as for adultery, there was, and there may be still, Bill Clinton.
