Lettre de Bush
by Lee
In the discussions today over the McCain amendment, which would codify the Army Field Manual as the de facto “bible” on the treatment of prisoners on US custody, one common refrain from many who oppose it has been something to the effect that the courts could subsequently define torture as anything that they like. While this is inherently true, I think many of you are missing out on the larger picture.
Ever since the founding of this nation we have relied on a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one branch of government grows so large or powerful that it can usurp power and become dictatorial. This system has served us well for over two centuries. Where we find ourselves now, as we have so many times in the past, is at a crossroads, and the decisions we make now are going to have repercussions far into the future. At issue is the role of the Executive in times of national emergency, specifically the degree to which it should be given free rein to prosecute a war as it sees fit. The specific issue at hand is the detention and treatment of prisoners.
Since the end of WWI the United States has signed on to numerous versions of the Geneva Conventions, sections of which detail the treatment of prisoners of war. The Bush administration has detained hundreds, if not thousands, of men, most of whom do not meet the literal definition of a prisoner of war as described under Geneva. That being said, one of the bedrock beliefs upon which America was based was the primacy of the individual, the respect for life and liberty that was missing from the world in which the Founders were born. This principle has guided American law and policy for hundreds of years, and it is currently under siege. Since these men do not meet the literal definition of prisoners of war, does that mean that they have no human rights, that they are ours to do with as we will?
Until now I have expressed four basic opinions when it comes to the treatment of prisoners. The first is that torture is morally wrong. The second is that torture is strategically stupid, since a tortured man will tell you whatever you want to hear simply to get the torture to stop, whether or not that information happens to be true. The third is that the benefits of torture are outweighed by the detriments to doing so, in terms of loss of prestige and the moral upper hand. And the fourth is that it is the junior enlisted personnel who end up taking the fall for mistreatment of prisoners. I would like to now add a fifth: that the precedent set here could very well be the first step on the road to totalitarianism.
The power to imprison men without trial has been the hallmark of dictatorial regimes throughout history. You only need to look at the concept of the lettre de cachet for a perfect example.
Lettre de Cachet, formerly in French law, private, sealed document, issued as a communication from the king. Such a letter could order imprisonment or exile for an individual without recourse to courts of law. Of very early origin, the lettre de cachet came into common use in the 17th cent. as an instrument of the new monarchy. Although its actual use was restrained, the issuance to local officials of lettres de cachet with the space for the name left blank inspired great fear. The occasional invocation of them against leaders of opinion, including Voltaire, became a symbol of arbitrary royal power and tyranny. They were abolished by the Constituent Assembly in the French Revolution. Napoleon I briefly renewed use of the lettres de cachet.
Those of you who saw the film Quills will be familiar with lettre de cachet, as this was the rule under which De Sade was imprisoned. Essentially anyone could be imprisoned at the pleasure of the king, and there were no mechanisms in place for the prisoner to win his just freedom. It was an example of the astonishing abuse of executive power. What the Bush administration has enacted is nothing more than a modern version of the lettre de cachet. Oh, sure, the men we’re imprisoning were picked up on the battlefield, right? And they’ve all got scary, Muslim names, so this isn’t anything that your average American Joe needs to be concerned about, is it?
Of the men currently being held in detention, how do we know that they are actually foreign fighters, and not just some poor dumb bastard who happened to be running back to his village to be with his wife and child? We don’t. And as it stands right now, there is no mechanism for any of these men to demonstrate that they do not deserve to be imprisoned, indefinitely, without trial. They are literally being held at the president’s pleasure. Given that our Founding Fathers fought a war against exactly this type of unrestrained executive power, and subsequently set up a system of careful checks and balances to prevent it from happening in the future, I think it is astonishingly short-sighted to somehow think that investing our Executive branch with the power of lettre de cachet is a prudent thing to do.
Right now there is an American citizen, Jose Padilla, being held without trial in a US detention center. This blatantly violates everything our Constitution is supposed to stand for. How is this possible? Simple: Bush declared him an “enemy combatant” and that was that. Instantly Padilla’s constitutional rights were voided with the stroke of a pen. So not only are we holding foreign fighters detained on the field of battle at the king’s pleasure, we’re now holding American citizens who were picked up on American soil. In other words, all it takes to have all your Constitutional rights made null and void is a simple presidential action declaring you an enemy combatant. “Oops, so sorry, it’s off to the gulag for you.”
This is where the short-sightedness comes in. I’m not saying, suggesting, intimating, or hinting that Bush is going to turn into a tyrant or a despot. He’s not going to be rounding up Americans to lock them up in cattle cars and ship them off to the camps. But Bush is only going to be president until 2008; who’s next? Would you want, say, Hillary Clinton to have the power to imprison anyone she liked without any kind of oversight? Who’s going to be president 20 years from now? This future president, who is probably in his 30s right now, can you say for certain that he is not someone who will abuse the power of lettre de cachet? What’s to stop this future president from declaring his political enemies to be enemy combatants and having them shipped off to a detention center somewhere, stripped of their constitutional protections? Don’t think it’s so crazy, Abraham Lincoln did a number of things in very much this vein after he suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. It can very well happen again.
So, let’s get back to checks and balances. One of the main complaints conservatives make is about the tyranny of the judiciary, where judges set policy and codify law, a function that the Constitution leaves to the legislative branch. Unfortunately, what I see happening is conservatives railing against the legislature’s attempt to curtail the power of the presidency, to limit the Executive’s absolute powers to treat prisoners as it pleases. Conservatives are literally arguing against the concept of the Congress checking and balancing the Executive. This is bad policy. Why? Because eventually a court case regarding the treatment of prisoners is going to make its way to the SCOTUS, as has happened in the Hamadan case. And when that happens, it is going to be nine unelected, unaccountable justices who will be formulating vital policy as it regards national security. By preventing the Congress from exercising its constitutional power to balance the Executive, conservatives are arguing in favor of judicial tyranny.
Those of you who are worried that the Ninth Circuit might interpret the McCain Amendment to define torture one way or another, don’t be fooled. Unless Congress takes the lead in clearly defining the powers of the president we’re going to be left with the judiciary holding the bag for that incompetence. This is an issue that MUST be dealt with, and the way to deal with it is through the legislative branch, not through the judicial. You might trust Bush not to turn into a tyrant, but what about the president 20 or 30 years from now who has built his palace on the foundation we are now laying?
Winston Churchill once said, “The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whther Nazi or Communist.” We would do well to heed those words now. Right now, in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, we are building the odious foundation of a possible totalitarian government. If we do not restrain the unchecked power of the Executive we might as well abolish the whole system altogether and simply crown him Emperor.
Laugh at me if you like, scoff at me if you must, but don’t say that you weren’t warned. The issue isn’t whether or not you trust Bush, it’s whether or not you trust the president 30 years from now.
Comments
Not just the US or Australia, its happening in UK as well. They are looking for 3 months detention subject to weekly judicial review (although one worries that would just be a routine box tick). Not sure if they are going to get it (seems doubtful) given that both the lefter wing and righter wing party are united against it. I am not sure I am fundemenally opposed to 3 months under specific circimstances with full disclosure and huge levels of oversight but certainly would be to the indefinite version in gitmo. I guess one thing is for sure regarding gitmo, if they didn’t go in as terrorists they will certainly come out (if they ever do) as them.
Yesterday i was wondering why you were so damm pissed off and going on a rant against Bush, now, with this, i can see why.
I pose a question to the whole RTFTLC community.
How are we to fight a enemy that observes no law, and is willing to do the most dreadful acts against civilians? How do we fight when we have members of our own government ,media and citizenry aiding, directly and indirectly, the enemy we are fighting?
How are we to fight a enemy that observes no law, and is willing to do the most dreadful acts against civilians? How do we fight when we have members of our own government ,media and citizenry aiding, directly and indirectly, the enemy we are fighting?
By being morally right. There is no other weapon so powerful.
By being morally right. There is no other weapon so powerful.
Yes. That always works. Nothing stops an immoral thug from beating the absolute crap out of you better than a stiff upper lip and an inflated sense of morality. And the best part is that, during your memorial service, everyone talks about what a moral person you were.
Ok, Devils Advocate:
What do you do if the president 30 yrs from now it Jimmy Carter Jr? If the laws go into place as you are suggesting, then JC has legal authority, and a SCOUTUS that agrees with him and congress. What happens if there is a terrorist problem or some other problem, but this president, SCOUTUS, and congress are letting the enemy go on legal technicalities? What happens if they aren’t getting the information needed to stop the enemy because they can’t persuade/torture prisoners to talk?
(I use the term persuade/torture interchangeably because no one can clearly define where one stops and the other starts without being challenged.)
(I use the term persuade/torture interchangeably because no one can clearly define where one stops and the other starts without being challenged.)
Just because there is a slippery slope between the two does not mean we can’t find an example of each and have everyone agreeing. Shouting & threatening a guy for example would be persuading whereas running high currents through their genitals until they said what was wanted would be torture. That there is a slipper slope does not mean a distinction can not be made.
Jabba, your example does not work. If a President came into power that wants to increase civil liberties they will almost certainly be able to. Its the other direction that is a slipper slope - a slippery slope to personal freedoms is a rather strange thing to be worried about.
What I think is unique about the US is that each time the Executive has done something in an emergency to seriously overstep its powers (Lincoln/Civil War/Habeas Corpus and FDR/WWII/Japanese Internment are two good examples), the Executive has always gone away from these powers once the emergency was over.
I’m not arguing either way on this bill (I’m still undecided), I’m just making a point.
I am against this for the same reasons I was against the federal marriage amendment, it will be far too easy for future administrations to twist it to their liking. Torture is already illegal and the perpetrators are being tried. As for the most recent incident, as I have no facts about it other than what has been posted here and in the media, I am reserving judgement.
The second is that torture is strategically stupid, since a tortured man will tell you whatever you want to hear simply to get the torture to stop, whether or not that information happens to be true.
However, the threat of torture has produced valid results. If we set a limit on ourselves to how far we’ll go, don’t you think the enemy will use that? If these guys don’t care about their own lives, that they’ll blow themselves up to kill their enemy, surely they can hold out through less. Plus, we already have people moving the bar on the definition of torture. Israeli flags and fake menstral blood are now the new thumb screws and iron maidens.
I think this bill is the right thing to do.
If there was one thing I learned in my Catholic school religion classes, it’s that the end does not justify the means.
You’re always better off taking the high road anyway.
By being morally right. There is no other weapon so powerful.
Yeah the next poor bastard that gets his head sawed off should remember that.
I’m happy to see that you’re finally coming around Lee.
Now repeat after me:
WORST PRESIDENT EVER
Give me a fucking break. Jimmy Carter was still 50 times worse than Bush could ever hope to be. And if Bill Clinton had actually had the integrity and balls to confront terrorism when it occurred under his watch then Bush most likely wouldn’t be in as bad a situation as he is now. I have some serious disagreements with this administration over policy, but if the election were held today, I’d *still* vote for Bush over Kerry.
By being morally right. There is no other weapon so powerful.
Yeah the next poor bastard that gets his head sawed off should remember that.
I agree to some extent, but looking at the big picture..
The suicide bombers believe that they are morally (religiously?) right. So all bets are off, yes? We just throw away the international rule book, and do whatever we like? In the global war on terror, if we don’t play by the rules the rest of the world has agreed on that puts us on the other side from the rest of the world. I beleive that the only way this global war can be won is if we are on the generally accepted side of right. There is no point in exterminating x number of enemies, if by doing that we create x+y number of enemies by doing so. So while is it shitty for the chaps in the front line now, a policy of ‘moral high ground’ ensures a freater national and global security for the future. It sucks, but it is the tpye of war the thugs have drawn us into.
So while is it shitty for the chaps in the front line now, a policy of ‘moral high ground’ ensures a freater national and global security for the future. It sucks, but it is the tpye of war the thugs have drawn us into.
Exactly.
A question for opponents of the McCain Amendment: should our government be empowered to saw the heads off detainees, then release videotape of the executions to the world? If you think that using torture against men willing to die is the only way, then surely executing them in the same manner that they choose is moral and reasonable, right? By releasing video of Islamists being beheaded by infidels surely that might strike fear into the hearts of terrorists everywhere, at least according to your logic. So, would you support the government being empowered to do this? Why or why not?
Lee, the problem I have with this sort of legislation, is the fact that politicians are in no way affected by these laws. They say they are “taking the moral high ground”, but nothing in thier life has changed one iota. Its the men on the front line who now have thier hands tied by some rich white politician.
I don’t condone torture but I’m not going to sit and pretend to know whether or not it should be done. I also have a hard time beleiveing that 100% of the time torture is a bad desicion.
I say let men who it really affects make the desicions, if we see evidence of unnessacery abuse or torture we should prosecute.
A question for opponents of the McCain Amendment: should our government be empowered to saw the heads off detainees, then release videotape of the executions to the world?
....but the moment you specifically spell out what you will or won’t do, you immediately remove the ability to use fear as a tactic. Obviously you can take any of this to an extreme, but once you start defining the limits, you basically are giving those that you are interrogating the rules by which you have to play. And once you start making rules, they start getting more and more watered down. “Oh, he yelled at me and looked at my Koran with his left eye! That’s torture!”
Why not let them think we will do all of the things you describe? Do we have to publicize that we will limit ourselves only to the nice, friendly tactics?
but if the election were held today, I’d *still* vote for Bush over Kerry.
The sad part is that the Dems would still probably nominate him.
“Hey, he almost won last time!”
but the moment you specifically spell out what you will or won’t do, you immediately remove the ability to use fear as a tactic.
I agree, and this is why I have no problem using coercive techniques. The problem is that I think that one of the things which distinguishes us from them is that we are willing to set limits on our own behavior. If we’re willing to empower our government to saw the heads of prisoners, then we are no better than they are. This is a battle of values, between the modern west and the backwards, theocratic Islamic east. I don’t want to see us degenerate to their level.
Its the men on the front line who now have thier hands tied by some rich white politician.
It seems to me that it’s the men on the front line who are going to prison for enacting the policies of some rich white politician. That’s the problem.
Bush messed up when he didn’t start the military tribunals to handle all of the folks now in Gitmo. Just dumping people into jail was asking for trouble.
“Hey, he almost won last time!”
Oh he would have won, but the elections were rigged remember? Even though there was no problem in Ohio in 2000, and the problem was in Florida. Mysteriously, Florida had no problems this time, and it all moved to Ohio. It couldn’t possibly be a pattern of just finding the state with the closest margin of victory and then crying foul, no matter which state it is could it?
I also have a hard time beleiveing that 100% of the time torture is a bad desicion
I agree. There are certainly limited, recognized instances (the “ticking time bomb” scenario) when it is appropriate. But these instances need to be spelled out in a clear policy, understandable by all, especially the men on the front lines. Right now there is no clear policy, and this is due solely to political weakness on the part of the Bush administration.
By being morally right. There is no other weapon so powerful. Yeah the next poor bastard that gets his head sawed off should remember that.
Having the most powerful military force in the world didn’t stop that either, did it?
The truth is, you can have all the force you want, but you are never going to actually win a war on terror unless the many people who support the few people you are fighting actually begin to question what it is that they are trying to achieve. By showing that you will pursue justice over force, you have a much better chance of doing that.
I’m with you all the way on this Lee. One of your all-time best posts.
Bush messed up when he didn’t start the military tribunals to handle all of the folks now in Gitmo. Just dumping people into jail was asking for trouble.
That is true. I think the Red Cross should be able to see every person captured, and these guys should have the right to counsel. If the administration wants to make a deal that if the Red Cross or another humanitarian group issues a report in a negative light, it should be done in a public forum with a chance for rebuttal, perhaps in front of congress. That could help clarify if the group is issuing a legitimate human rights violation, or if there is another political agenda being pushed. I think some torture has occurred, but a lot of bullshit has also been spewed, and this all needs to be cleared up. The Democrats want hearings now. I say go for it. If Bush has done the right thing, he should have no problem putting these guys in their place. I still don’t know about signing another law though.
My only problem with the bill in question is the fact that coercive and effective techniques like sleep deprivation have been labeled torture.
The overly broad “inhumane treatment” can be used to include almost everything outside of a polite, “Excuse me chap, but do you know of any other young men with bomb-vests who are planning to take a ride on the [insert city name here] subway system this week? No? Okay then, off you go you little rapscallion.”
I believe in the no blood no foul rule with torture. Sleep deprivation-fine, pissing on the Koran-fine, lap dances-fine (of course), taking them to “secret” locations to make them think that we can do anything to them and then attaching a (dead) battery to their genitals-fine. Really, anything short of maiming, breaking bones, or decapitation should be fair game. With this rule we aren’t “sinking to their level”.
My only problem with the bill in question is the fact that coercive and effective techniques like sleep deprivation have been labeled torture.
This is why this administration should go before Congress. This administration should demand hearings just as much as the Dems have been demanding. Bush needs to send in some tough people though, not ones who are afraid to say anything, or just yes men who will try to appease. Ask the questions. Is sleep deprivation torture or not? Why do the goal posts keep moving? Bush could turn the tables on this, if he was willing to confront his critics for once, but he is a puss. He does like to hide, and that leaves his intentions, and how he follows the rules in suspect in the minds of many.
My only problem with the bill in question is the fact that coercive and effective techniques like sleep deprivation have been labeled torture.
Sleep deprivation can cause long term psychological and physical damage to the internal organs (such as the heart). Just because you think it’s OK doesn’t mean it is any less damaging to a person than using a rack or thumbscrews.
Sleep deprivation can cause long term psychological and physical damage to the internal organs (such as the heart). Just because you think it’s OK doesn’t mean it is any less damaging to a person than using a rack or thumbscrews.
You see Lee, this is the shit people are concerned about with this whole torture thing. It never ends. Anything short of letting these guys go and doing what the do best (killing Americans) is torture. It is heading down that path. So don’t get too upset at people you think are just blindly supporting Bush. They just know where this headed by those who want ‘fair and just’ treatment of prisoners.
Anything short of letting these guys go and doing what the do best (killing Americans) is torture
Wow, now that really was a leap of logic. The choice is either torture or letting them go? Who is arguing for that?
If people are a danger to society, then lock ‘em up until they are not (forever if necessary). But don’t torture them and make sure everyone sees and knows that you are giving them a fair trial. It’s really not that difficult - even a dumb libtard like me can see that.
Sleep deprivation can cause long term psychological and physical damage to the internal organs (such as the heart). Just because you think it’s OK doesn’t mean it is any less damaging to a person than using a rack or thumbscrews.
And loud music can cause hearing loss, and bright lights can probably cause problems with vision. Go cry me a river.
"Sleep deprivation can cause long term psychological and physical damage to the internal organs (such as the heart). Just because you think it’s OK doesn’t mean it is any less damaging to a person than using a rack or thumbscrews.”
Oh my gosh, I always knew that ‘college’ was bad for your health!!!!
Thanks for the info stogy.
Do you think I can sue the college and claim psychological/physical damage due to too much homework?
Here’s what WebMD has to say about sleep deprivation. Long term, it could increase the risk of heart disease. That’s long term, and could increase. There is more than just locking them up. There is an interrogation process to get info. This isn’t just capturing one person who is the only person involved in the situation. Oh, the other risk is bad driving, but they aren’t going to be doing that any time soon.
And this boys and girls is why Bush doesn’t want to sign on to this ‘legislation’.
If the bill gave clear guidelines, it would be a different story. But it doesn’t. On the subject of torture, I think the law is clear enough.
This bill makes the Army Field Manual the ‘de-facto bible’ as you put it, for military personnel, whick is understandable. Since for the most part, the Army makes up the overwhelming majority of military personnel that deals with detaining prisoners, this is a little pointless, since they are already bound by the FM.
For non-military personnel, it makes the United Nations the ‘de-facto bible’.
BTW, the Pentagon is currently revising the Army Field Manual, to be a lot more specific on what behavior is acceptable, and how to report violations. That will be a lot more useful to the grunts in the field, than some 10 line amendment to a Defense Appropriations bill.
On the other hand, I do agree with Lee on the subject of indefinitely detaining people without charge. That is one thing that is really reprehensible here. There is a good chance that many of these people have absolutely nothing to do with any terrorists, and are being held indefinitely, without charge, for the mere fact that they know they don’t have enough evidence to charge them with anything. They need to be charged or set free.
Sleep deprivation can cause long term psychological and physical damage to the internal organs (such as the heart).
Oh puh’lease! God help us if you guys are ever charged with leading the WoT. This isn’t about feelings. Bleeder.
I agree that the bill is vague in its definitions. That should be reworked. However, this type of law is exactly the kind the Federal government should be passing.
You see Lee, this is the shit people are concerned about with this whole torture thing. It never ends. Anything short of letting these guys go and doing what the do best (killing Americans) is torture. It is heading down that path. So don’t get too upset at people you think are just blindly supporting Bush. They just know where this headed by those who want ‘fair and just’ treatment of prisoners.
Yeah, but my point is that this is where it’s headed anyway. We need a solid set of guidelines, enacted by Congress, to designate what is acceptable and unacceptable treatmet of prisoners. Without this, we’re going to end up with judges making that call, and we all know just how well things work out when judges are put in a position where they assume the legislative function.
Lee,
You have a gift. The discussions on this web site are the best I have read. You have the ability to draw people in and really think about the subject at hand. This is a perfect example.
I appreciate your efforts to educate me!:-) At least you give me a lot to think about.
This is too funny! Several of the conservatives here may be picking on you these days, Lee, but you’ve got all the libs singing your praises. :)
Thanks for making my point Stogy. I agree with Lee, clear guidelines are needed. Unfortunately, the Bill being touted by McCain does not provide them.
Sleep deprivation is a tried and true method of interrogation, yet Stogy (and I’m sure plenty of other “dumb libtards") thinks that it fits the “inhumane treatment” outlined in the Bill. Face it, there will always be people who think anything done to a prisoner that makes them uncomfortable is “inhumane”.
Strike that phrase from the Bill and replace it with “no blood, no foul” and I’d support it instantly.
I was hoping I would get that response! I think it’s too funny that when someone proposes a principled argument they get called a liberal or that liberals love him. Lee and I disagree on several things but I have to admire that he is an independent thinker and doesn’t carry water for the party boys. That is exactly what political dialogue needs is to step outside talking points from the political hacks and think things through. Judging from the responses Lee gets, people are doing that. That has to be good all the way round. Labels only serve as a short circuit around critical thinking. Believe it or not, but there a several conservatives out there I admire in spite of the fact that we disagree, and even tho Lee has called me unflattering names more than once, he is one of them.
And, No! I am not having a Rodney King moment!
I was hoping I would get that response! I think it’s too funny that when someone proposes a principled argument they get called a liberal or that liberals love him. Lee and I disagree on several things but I have to admire that he is an independent thinker and doesn’t carry water for the party boys. That is exactly what political dialogue needs is to step outside talking points from the political hacks and think things through. Judging from the responses Lee gets, people are doing that. That has to be good all the way round. Labels only serve as a short circuit around critical thinking. Believe it or not, but there a several conservatives out there I admire in spite of the fact that we disagree, and even tho Lee has called me unflattering names more than once, he is one of them.
And, No! I am not having a Rodney King moment!
I was hoping I would get that response! I think it’s too funny that when someone proposes a principled argument they get called a liberal or that liberals love him.
Well, first off, beano, no need to repeat yourself. (Sorry, couldn’t let it pass).
Second, I’d say you’re stretching it a bit there, aren’t you? “Principled arguments” are only made by liberals? That’s really open-minded of you.
OT - why is this site SO SLOW today?
I didn’t call him a liberal, you guys did.
I KNOW he’s not a liberal!
A principled argument is not defined by political viewpoint, either.
I didn’t call him a liberal, you guys did.
I KNOW he’s not a liberal!
A principled argument is not defined by political viewpoint, either.
Fine. But you still aren’t explaining this comment by you -
I think it’s too funny that when someone proposes a principled argument they get called a liberal or that liberals love him.
Lee has made many arguments in which no one called him a liberal. So, your statement doesn’t hold water, unless YOU think the only “Principled” arguments that Lee has made are the ones that YOU agree with.
btw - I have never referred to Lee as a Liberal.
Next entry: Giving Props Again
Previous entry: Teenage Wasteland
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8229
Total Logged in members: 3
Total guests: 56
Total anonymous users: 0
fangbeer,
frankie,
Manwhore,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
Quote Mining
(14 total, Last @ 08:04)
Dick Fitzwell: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul--George Bernard Shaw Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.--Mark Twain A major source of objection to a…
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(7 total, Last @ 07:34)
Seattle Outcast: Get that sand washed out yet muirgeo1?
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:33)
Seattle Outcast: Considering that this is exactly what I hear from your typical garden-variety libtard, I'm keeping my guard up around them in case they snap.
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:15)
AlexinCT: My response is to wonder how people get like this. There has to be some sort of mental imbalance at work here. I seriously hope this can’t just happen to anyone given the right – or in this case, wrong – circumstances. There are very few things that would push…
Tonight's speech by Obama on Iraq...
(29 total, Last @ 07:00)
AlexinCT: Fair enough. But bitching Obama all day every day would become tiresome—for me, if not for you. If Obama gave me anything not to bitch about, I would. Then again, when I did give him his propos I recall you were still unhappy with that too. I’ve made it pretty…
Last 30 Comments
...and that is what John Howard did in Australia last week.
Please refer my comments in the Why Australia isn’t France thread, which details some of the new powers the Australian Government has enacted that can imprison without charge and restrict the press from publicising such acts.
(please note I stuffed up the source in the first comment, fixed in second comment).