Post by: Manedwolf on September 17, 2007, 04:45:08 AM
Quote
(BBC)
Iraq has cancelled the licence of the private security firm, Blackwater USA, after it was involved in a gunfight in which at least eight civilians died.
The Iraqi interior ministry said the contractor, based in North Carolina, was now banned from operating in Iraq.
The Blackwater workers, who were contracted by the US state department, apparently opened fire after coming under attack in Baghdad on Sunday.
Thousands of private security guards are employed in lawless Iraq.
They are often heavily armed, but critics say some are not properly trained and are not accountable except to their employers.
The interior ministry's director of operations, Maj Gen Abdul Karim Khalaf, said authorities would prosecute any foreign contractors found to have used excessive force.
"We have opened a criminal investigation against the group who committed the crime," he told the Agence France-Presse news agency.
All Blackwater personnel have been told to leave Iraq immediately, with the exception of the men involved in the incident on Sunday.
They will have to remain the country and stand trial, the ministry said.
US investigation
The convoy carrying officials from the US state department came under attack at about 1230 local time on Sunday as it passed through Nisoor Square in the predominantly Sunni neighbourhood of Mansour.
The Blackwater security guards accompanying the convoy returned fire, killing eight people and wounding 13 others, Iraqi officials said.
Blackwater bodyguards protected ex-US civilian head Paul Bremer
Most of the dead and wounded were bystanders, the officials added. One of those killed was a policeman.
A spokesman for the US embassy in Baghdad later confirmed its security vehicles had been involved in the gunfight.
"They received small arms fire. One of the vehicles was disabled in the shooting and had to be towed from the scene," he said.
"The incident is being investigated by department of state diplomatic security service law enforcement officials in co-operation with the government of Iraq and multinational forces."
Blackwater has not yet commented on the incident.
Iraq has cancelled the licence of the private security firm, Blackwater USA, after it was involved in a gunfight in which at least eight civilians died.
The Iraqi interior ministry said the contractor, based in North Carolina, was now banned from operating in Iraq.
The Blackwater workers, who were contracted by the US state department, apparently opened fire after coming under attack in Baghdad on Sunday.
Thousands of private security guards are employed in lawless Iraq.
They are often heavily armed, but critics say some are not properly trained and are not accountable except to their employers.
The interior ministry's director of operations, Maj Gen Abdul Karim Khalaf, said authorities would prosecute any foreign contractors found to have used excessive force.
"We have opened a criminal investigation against the group who committed the crime," he told the Agence France-Presse news agency.
All Blackwater personnel have been told to leave Iraq immediately, with the exception of the men involved in the incident on Sunday.
They will have to remain the country and stand trial, the ministry said.
US investigation
The convoy carrying officials from the US state department came under attack at about 1230 local time on Sunday as it passed through Nisoor Square in the predominantly Sunni neighbourhood of Mansour.
The Blackwater security guards accompanying the convoy returned fire, killing eight people and wounding 13 others, Iraqi officials said.
Blackwater bodyguards protected ex-US civilian head Paul Bremer
Most of the dead and wounded were bystanders, the officials added. One of those killed was a policeman.
A spokesman for the US embassy in Baghdad later confirmed its security vehicles had been involved in the gunfight.
"They received small arms fire. One of the vehicles was disabled in the shooting and had to be towed from the scene," he said.
"The incident is being investigated by department of state diplomatic security service law enforcement officials in co-operation with the government of Iraq and multinational forces."
Blackwater has not yet commented on the incident.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998788.stm
Post by: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 04:59:13 AM
I realize that's a general hearsay 3rd hand anecdote, but it meshes with what's here.
Post by: HankB on September 17, 2007, 05:30:02 AM
Tell me, has the Iraqi "government" (and I use the term loosely) told the terrorists to leave the country?
Post by: TexasRifleman on September 17, 2007, 06:54:36 AM
Full story there, short version is they are all banned from Iraq and subject to arrest and prosecution there.
There has been lots of talk about what a bad idea Blackwater was, doing what the military traditionally did.
Can't say that I am unhappy to see them fall apart like this, it was a bad idea from the start.
My worry is now that there is nothing to do in Iraq that we'll see them used more here domestically like in Katrina etc.
Disclaimer: I know there are some BW contractors that post over at THR, this is nothing personal, just my opinion on the organization as a whole.
Post by: Joe Demko on September 17, 2007, 07:57:56 AM
Another 3rd hand anecdote: A former student of mine who recently returned from Iraq (following a tour in Afghanistan) said that the Blackwater people were a "clusterf*ck waiting to happen."
Post by: K Frame on September 17, 2007, 08:02:39 AM
He's a lot LESS complimentary than anything seen here so far...
Post by: Bogie on September 17, 2007, 09:38:22 AM
Post by: wooderson on September 17, 2007, 10:22:04 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 17, 2007, 10:28:52 AM
Too many of them are into "spray and pray" and "I'm bulletproof if I'm throwing enough lead." They get paid a lot, and they buy a LOT of toys... And then they want to use them. There's some real deal guys with 'em, but there are a lot more gunshop commandos...
That would be why I was dismayed to see them in the New Orleans area doing the peacekeeping thing around the camps and such.
If I was in a post-disaster area and saw a member of the US military walking around, I'd say good morning or offer them a bottle of water or coffee or such. If I saw a Blackwater merc doing the same, I'd just keep my head down and any weapons well out of sight, including just a hip-worn holster. I suspect a lot of people feel the same way.
Post by: longeyes on September 17, 2007, 10:58:16 AM
Post by: Waitone on September 17, 2007, 11:52:35 AM
Post by: K Frame on September 17, 2007, 12:28:40 PM
Post by: wooderson on September 17, 2007, 12:35:38 PM
Quote
According to some accounting math it is cheaper to hire merc than it is to put on full time grunts.
But that's almost always the rule: for someone to make money in the outsourcing process, something has to be shorted. 'Efficiency' is a curious code word.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 17, 2007, 05:51:16 PM
The convoy in this case (per the story) was State Dep't.
I don't know any details beyond the news story but the need for manpower isn't going to "go away" and I don't think the Army is going to be able to supply support if they couldn't before. So a new contractor will probably step in and things will continue as before.
Post by: Hawkmoon on September 17, 2007, 05:59:16 PM
What do you think was going to happen when your government outsources occupation duties? According to some accounting math it is cheaper to hire merc than it is to put on full time grunts. Count me skeptical.
It isn't (and wasn't) about dollars, it is (and was) about bodies. Remember, the U.S. doesn't really have enough soldiers to support even the number we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only way they can pull it off is by sending the same guys/units back with far less time between deployments than ever before, and longer deployments than ever before ... topped off by stop loss ("Yes, your term of enlistment is over but you don't get to go home. Tough ... read the fine print.") So we "outsourced" a lot of the jobs/tasks/roles that in previous times would have been handled by the military.
Post by: jeepmor on September 17, 2007, 06:03:13 PM
Quote
"said that the Blackwater people were a "clusterf*ck waiting to happen."
Corruption associated with Bush's war, do tell....
I've always put more faith in the honest "I was there, I dealt with these folks" type of reports than anything the media or the government has ever told me. Like in big corporations, the analysts put more faith in what the employee base says compared to what the PR department spews.
Post by: RevDisk on September 17, 2007, 06:14:58 PM
Sad to see that shooting back is no longer approved . . .
Tell me, has the Iraqi "government" (and I use the term loosely) told the terrorists to leave the country?
Tell me, has the Iraqi "government" (and I use the term loosely) told the terrorists to leave the country?
Shooting back is approved. Shooting bystanders is not approved. Shooting at Iraqi or American soldiers is not approved. I won't even touch on the subject of looting and various other activities Blackwater employees have been known to commit. From most of the soldiers I know who worked anywhere near them, Blackwater security personnel are not people you'd want to trust with training sims, live ammo being completely out of the question. A lot of the instructors are decent folks. The self-proclaimed "operators", generally not.
I don't like mercs. Actual security personnel ain't bad. I actually came in contact with plenty of decent security folks who understood their jobs. They didn't pretend to be soldiers, their exclusive job was to keep whoever was paying them alive. That's it.
My only gripe about the Iraqi decision to ban Blackwater and all Blackwater personnel is that the US hasn't passed a similiar law.
Post by: longeyes on September 17, 2007, 07:41:15 PM
I suspect it will end up being done by Blackwater's subsidiary, Whitewater.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 17, 2007, 07:52:45 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 17, 2007, 08:40:23 PM
The primary purpose here is to transfer massive amounts of public wealth into private hands; to rob the treasury. That has been successfully accomplished, to the tune of billions of dollars. The secondary purpose is to make an end run around the entire military chain of command/protocol/ROE system. The administration gets its own private army to do its will without question and without barriers such as the Geneva Convention or the UCMJ.
They've mostly gotten away with it, too. These 'subcontractors' have committed acts in Iraq that would get them life imprisonment, if not the the death sentence, had they done the same things in this country.
GWB is CIC of the U.S. military. Nowhere in the Constitution is he granted the power to hire a private army of thugs to do his will, like some Columbian drug lord (at least Columbian drug lords use their own money)
The U.S. Congress is complicit in this conspiracy because they've been writing the checks and completely neglecting their oversight responsibilities. The result is that the U.S. government has become a criminal enterprise, yet there will be no prosecutions because we are all asleep.
Our decline has begun, we've lost any moral authority we once had (earned at the expense of the blood of millions of real patriots). Thanks, GWB, you've done more damage to this country in 8 years than all of our enemies over the past 232 years. May you burn in hell.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 17, 2007, 09:05:25 PM
Post by: Finch on September 17, 2007, 10:20:33 PM
Quote from: Declaration of Independence
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
I think that was one of the many reasons they did that whole revolution thingy.
It scares me when the government starts using private armies to do their bidding. You can see that same thing in past governments that went from a democracy/republic to fascism.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 17, 2007, 11:27:19 PM
Don't overreach here, if they were performing contract labor for DoD or State those contracts are/were most certainly NOT secret, open to FOID, and fully under the purview of our elected representatives in Congress (civil authority).
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 12:05:31 AM
Our decline has begun, we've lost any moral authority we once had (earned at the expense of the blood of millions of real patriots). Thanks, GWB, you've done more damage to this country in 8 years than all of our enemies over the past 232 years. May you burn in hell.
Post by: Joe Demko on September 18, 2007, 02:54:52 AM
Post by: longeyes on September 18, 2007, 06:24:06 AM
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 06:43:06 AM
I couldn't agree more!
Quote
but isn't it what happens when there is very little public involvement in the martial responsibilities of the Republic? Morality abhors a vacuum.
I think you're assuming that defense is only possible following the statist model of standing armies. The founders thought that a well-trained militia was the way to go, and Switzerland is doing quite well with exactly that. But a well-trained militia lends itself very well to privatization by a combination of corporate and fraternal arrangements. Private local armories and shooting ranges make perfect sense, for example.
I think that would be more moral than the current arrangement, in which we delegate our defense to young men composing a tiny minority of the population, many of them poor and minorities, that the rest of us can regard as chess pieces and sacrifice on a whim. I do not refer to politicians as "chicken hawks," but the point is valid that we'd take a different perspective on foreign invasions if we personally were expected to take up arms and ship out. Washington led his army from the front, not from a comfy safe chair in the White House. If GWB were required by law to lead the invasion into Iran personally, we can be quite certain he'd take a much more thoughtful approach to his next war.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 08:26:28 AM
"War never solved anything."
I could think of a dozen examples where war was exactly the right thing to do. The Iraq War being an outstanding one.
Quote
I think that would be more moral than the current arrangement, in which we delegate our defense to young men composing a tiny minority of the population, many of them poor and minorities, that the rest of us can regard as chess pieces and sacrifice on a whim. I do not refer to politicians as "chicken hawks," but the point is valid that we'd take a different perspective on foreign invasions if we personally were expected to take up arms and ship out. Washington led his army from the front, not from a comfy safe chair in the White House. If GWB were required by law to lead the invasion into Iran personally, we can be quite certain he'd take a much more thoughtful approach to his next war.
I'd like to hear from some of the career military folks on the board about this. Maybe you regard them as chess pieces and disposable, but I doubt the military, or society, does.
Post by: K Frame on September 18, 2007, 08:28:32 AM
And strictly speaking, in this case, it's not an issue of war being privitized. It's an issue of internal security being privitized inside the greater framework of a war.
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 08:30:39 AM
"War is wrong"
"War never solved anything."
I could think of a dozen examples where war was exactly the right thing to do.
"War never solved anything."
I could think of a dozen examples where war was exactly the right thing to do.
I fully support self-defense, and defensive war is nothing more than large-scale self-defense. So my above was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Offensive war is always wrong, and the Iraq war is one example of offensive war.
Quote
Quote
I think that would be more moral than the current arrangement, in which we delegate our defense to young men composing a tiny minority of the population, many of them poor and minorities, that the rest of us can regard as chess pieces and sacrifice on a whim.
I'd like to hear from some of the career military folks on the board about this. Maybe you regard them as chess pieces and disposable, but I doubt the military, or society, does.
I don't regard them as chess pieces. The current administration, however, does. If they did not, they would have used the military only for defensive purposes, rather than squandering their lives for reasons that are still not clear to this day.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 08:33:26 AM
Was WW2 an offensive or a defensive war?
Why is an "offensive" war always wrong?
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 08:50:25 AM
How do you define "offensive" and "defensive" in a world where waiting for evidence of an impending attack is tantamount to surrender?
The bit I italicized is begging the question: you're assuming that the only defense is preemptive offense. But you can't assume it; you need to prove it. In the case of the Iraq war it's wrong on three counts:
First, the attack would not have come in the first place if we hadn't been interfering--criminally, I might add--in their affairs for decades.
Second, assuming Iraq had every intention of invading the continental US, they utterly lacked the capability. Under the most pessimistic scenario, Iraq could have caused at most a few thousand deaths, which is a far cry from "tantamount to surrender."
Third, if Iraq were to contemplate invasion despite their absurdly overmatched status, the cost of the invasion would be unbearable. An outright attack on the US would have justified a full military response, which would have destroyed their forces even before they could reach our shores--with full approval of the American people and anyone else with a shred of morality. Successful deployment of a nuke (pretending they had one in the first place) would result in immediate and devastating counterattack on Iraq, possibly including nuclear strikes, and again with the people's approval. Deployment of a nuke by a proxy would not affect anything; it's a straightforward matter to figure out whose nuke it was.
In short, the US has never been, and is not now, in anything approaching mortal danger from any Muslim nation. The combination of a nuclear arsenal and an armed citizenry suffices to ensure that we never will be in such danger.
Quote
Why is an "offensive" war always wrong?
You just asked why it's wrong to kill someone who isn't ready, willing and able to kill you. Are you being rhetorical?
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 09:30:55 AM
How do you define "offensive" and "defensive" in a world where waiting for evidence of an impending attack is tantamount to surrender?
The bit I italicized is begging the question: you're assuming that the only defense is preemptive offense. But you can't assume it; you need to prove it. In the case of the Iraq war it's wrong on three counts:
First, the attack would not have come in the first place if we hadn't been interfering--criminally, I might add--in their affairs for decades.
Second, assuming Iraq had every intention of invading the continental US, they utterly lacked the capability. Under the most pessimistic scenario, Iraq could have caused at most a few thousand deaths, which is a far cry from "tantamount to surrender."
Third, if Iraq were to contemplate invasion despite their absurdly overmatched status, the cost of the invasion would be unbearable. An outright attack on the US would have justified a full military response, which would have destroyed their forces even before they could reach our shores--with full approval of the American people and anyone else with a shred of morality. Successful deployment of a nuke (pretending they had one in the first place) would result in immediate and devastating counterattack on Iraq, possibly including nuclear strikes, and again with the people's approval. Deployment of a nuke by a proxy would not affect anything; it's a straightforward matter to figure out whose nuke it was.
In short, the US has never been, and is not now, in anything approaching mortal danger from any Muslim nation. The combination of a nuclear arsenal and an armed citizenry suffices to ensure that we never will be in such danger.
Quote
Why is an "offensive" war always wrong?
You just asked why it's wrong to kill someone who isn't ready, willing and able to kill you. Are you being rhetorical?
--Len.
Wow, lots of assumptions.
So you think that a measly 2-3000 people dead in a terrorist attack is OK? I'd say the vast majority of people would disagree.
As for lacking the capability, that is unclear, even now. Lacking capability to carry out a full scale conventional war like those fought in the past? Yes, probably. But we live in a time of unconventional warfare. Could Iraq have joined up with al Qaeda, supplying them with some kind of nuclear weapon or other dirty bomb? Yes, certainly. It is an obvious thing and something any gov't would be responsible to counter.
Your answer to the offensive war makes no sense. It is a complete non-sequitur. I ask about war between nations and you answer a question on personal defense.
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 09:48:35 AM
So you think that a measly 2-3000 people dead in a terrorist attack is OK?
"OK"? Of course not! I never said such a thing, and it was never the question at hand. The question is: does 2-3,000 deaths justify killing 30-100,000 people who had nothing whatsoever to do with those 2-3,000 deaths? If a gang-banger kills my son, can I hunt you down and kill you and your whole family, even though you have nothing to do with anything? That's what you're talking about when you suggest that invading Iraq is justified by the fact that a bunch of Saudis with no ties to Iraq killed a bunch of Americans.
Quote
As for lacking the capability, that is unclear, even now. Lacking capability to carry out a full scale conventional war like those fought in the past? Yes, probably. But we live in a time of unconventional warfare. Could Iraq have joined up with al Qaeda, supplying them with some kind of nuclear weapon or other dirty bomb? Yes, certainly...
I covered that possibility. You're supposing that Saddam is so insane that he's willing to be nuked in response--and that would be the response. It's a fictional fantasy to suppose that he'd hand off a nuke to some whacko knowing that Baghdad would be the first target vaporized in response. That's precisely the scenario that people like to propose, but they're not even thinking 30 seconds past the big kaboom; in their minds, the curtain falls and the credits roll once an attack is carried out. In the real world, there's major hell to pay after the attack.
Quote
Your answer to the offensive war makes no sense. It is a complete non-sequitur. I ask about war between nations and you answer a question on personal defense.
Killing is killing, whether one man does it or a million. Killing is justified in response to a real and present deadly threat. It is not justified for the hell of it, or because "they" have more cotton candy than "we", or because we don't like the cut of their jib. Your question is what makes no sense. How do you justify killing for any reason other than defense of self or others? And how do you square that with the tenets of Judaism? You are authorized to kill an attacker, or a rodef, or a criminal convicted of a capital crime.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 18, 2007, 09:49:05 AM
Quote
I fully support self-defense, and defensive war is nothing more than large-scale self-defense. So my above was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Offensive war is always wrong, and the Iraq war is one example of offensive war.
If someone is pointing a gun at you, do you wait for them to shoot at you and hopefully miss, or do you draw and shoot before they can really draw a bead on you?
Quote
The question is: does 2-3,000 deaths justify killing 30-100,000 people who had nothing whatsoever to do with those 2-3,000 deaths?
Utter fallacy. WE DID NOT KILL MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE! The insurgents, terrorists and factional-violence fighters did!
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 10:01:37 AM
Quote
I fully support self-defense, and defensive war is nothing more than large-scale self-defense. So my above was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Offensive war is always wrong, and the Iraq war is one example of offensive war.
If someone is pointing a gun at you, do you wait for them to shoot at you and hopefully miss, or do you draw and shoot before they can really draw a bead on you?
Since this is ARMED POLITE SOCIETY, I hope that everyone here has the answer to that drilled thoroughly into their heads: a deadly response is justified if your attacker has the intention, ability and opportunity to inflict grave bodily harm on you. You can't shoot a guy who says, "I want to kill you!" when he's unarmed and 1,000 miles away. You can't shoot a man who says "I want to kill you!" when he's armed but 1,000 miles away. You can't shoot him when he says, "I want to kill you!" and he's nearby, if he's unarmed and unable to pose a threat. He must have the motive, means and opportunity to harm you before you can apply deadly force.
Needless to say, the same applies internationally: it would be immoral to carpet-bomb Elbonia because they say mean things about us, when their most advanced weaponry consists of yak jaws and longbows. It would be immoral to bomb India because they're (nuclear) armed, when they haven't threatened us.
Iraq, of course, lacked the means or opportunity, since they were heavily watched by US forces, were already surrounded and subject to enforced no-fly zones, had no WMDs, had no navy or air force to speak of, and could hardly march their troops to the US overland (via Europe?) without our noticing.
Quote
Quote
The question is: does 2-3,000 deaths justify killing 30-100,000 people who had nothing whatsoever to do with those 2-3,000 deaths?
Utter fallacy. WE DID NOT KILL MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE! The insurgents, terrorists and factional-violence fighters did!
We took a country that was NOT a bloodbath, and turned it into a bloodbath. Even if none of those people were killed by direct US action, we are responsible for the chaos that gave rise to their civil war.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 10:36:41 AM
Really, if I have people I think are going to threaten me in the future, I'm going to hunt them down and kill them. Is there something wrong with that?
Post by: Paddy on September 18, 2007, 10:42:33 AM
Really, if I have people I think are going to threaten me in the future, I'm going to hunt them down and kill them. Is there something wrong with that?
So prior restraint is OK by you? Wait, I know. You'll call it 'preemptive action'.
"A
Minority Report, anyone?
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 10:45:58 AM
Really, if I have people I think are going to threaten me in the future, I'm going to hunt them down and kill them. Is there something wrong with that?
So prior restraint is OK by you? Wait, I know. You'll call it 'preemptive action'.
"A
Minority Report, anyone?
Yeah. What's the problem?
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 10:54:57 AM
Len, you're committing a metaphorical fallacy. A nation is not an individual.
I never said it was. Indeed, I consistently say the opposite: not only aren't nations individuals, but because they are not individuals, they do not have "rights" or "authority" or any other human qualities that we normally attribute to them by anthropomorphism. A "nation" is a group of individuals, and nobody in it is exempted from morality by virtue of wearing its flags, uniforms or insignias.
It's very simple. I'm allowed to defend myself. Therefore, I'm allowed to delegate that authority to anyone I choose, such as a bodyguard or security agent. The police get their power to defend me from me. They're acting as my agents, on my behalf, and they have no more or less authority, morally, than would I personally. That's why, morally, they have no more right to shoot someone that I myself would in their place, and they should be (though they often aren't) held to exactly the same standards as anyone else--in particular, they should not get any extra "benefit of the doubt" when they kill someone.
The army's authority to defend me also comes from me. If Hottentots invade, *I* can shoot them--or I can delegate that task to soldiers who do it on my behalf. But those soldiers still have the same human rights, moral obligations and legal restrictions as I do. They aren't free to murder, and they don't have any special rights to kill with impunity. They are obligated to kill attackers, and not kill the innocent, exactly as I would be if I were there acting on my own behalf.
And thus the army's powers are precisely the same as my own. The laws governing self-defense apply to them as well as to myself. Their actions are nothing more than my self-defense, carried out by them as my agents.
I realize that you will dispute this. However, you'll have a tough time proving that gathering men into a mob and dressing them in khaki changes the rules of morality and makes mass-murder or other crimes acceptable.
Quote
Really, if I have people I think are going to threaten me in the future, I'm going to hunt them down and kill them. Is there something wrong with that?
You think I might threaten you someday, and therefore you feel free to hunt me down and kill me? Did you actually say that? Any randomly-selected black or hispanic might threaten you someday. Why don't you kill them now in self-defense? YOU DON'T, of course. Because you realize that it's immoral when we're talking about individuals. But when soldiers or cops act as our agent, for some reason we assume that they're under a different morality where murdering people who might be a problem someday is perfectly acceptable.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 11:12:13 AM
It isn't. Not a single political philosopher says it is. A state is something that has an identity separate and distinct from the individuals comprising it. The Founders recognized that. Thus they gave the government powers. Those powers are fundamentally different from the rights of individuals, because a state is fundamentally different from an individual.
As for hunting people down, you introduced the word "random." You also chose to introduce race. Bad boy.
Why dont you explain why its wrong to hunt down and kill someone who I have good reason is going to threaten me in the future.
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 11:26:35 AM
That's really bizarre. Your whole conception of a state as being merely a collection of individuals, like some homeowners association or something.
Rather than attacking the position by insulting it, how about actually attempting to justify your position? I look forward to your argument that a nation is not a group of individuals.
Quote
It isn't.
Unsupported assertion.
Quote
Not a single political philosopher says it is.
Appeal to authority, using an unsupported assertion. And besides, it's false. Murray Rothbard is one example, which suffices to disprove your claim.
Quote
A state is something that has an identity separate and distinct from the individuals comprising it.
Another unsupported assertion; still begging the question. I'd love to see you attempt to prove this. Nations have identity? Are you saying that they're self-aware? That they get hungry, and sleepy, and happy, and sad?
Quote
The Founders recognized that.
Another appeal to authority.
Quote
Thus they gave the government powers. Those powers are fundamentally different from the rights of individuals, because a state is fundamentally different from an individual.
You are actually very much mistaken. The founders believed that the powers of government were powers granted to it, by consent of the governed, and represented a delegation of powers possessed by the governed in the first place. This was precisely Locke's theory of government as a revocable social contract. Madison specifically cites Lock in a letter to Jefferson in February of 1825, saying in particular, "Sidney & Locke are admirably calculated to impress on young minds the right of Nations to establish their own Governments, and to inspire a love of free ones...." To the founders, a government was something established by the people; it was not an entity in its own right with a separate identity and rights superseding those of the citizens.
Quote
Why dont you explain why its wrong to hunt down and kill someone who I have good reason is going to threaten me in the future.
I could argue using your favorite style of reasoning: go ahead and try it and see what the US government does to you. You'll be charged and convicted of murder.
Or I could leave the burden of proof where it belongs and ask how you justify such a thing. On that note, I repeat my curiosity how you manage to justify that in the context of Jewish law? Judaism certainly does not condone hunting down someone and killing him based on what he might do someday.
Or I could point out the obvious: killing someone who neither has done anything to you in the past, nor is threatening imminent harm in the present, is what we call "murder." If I'm not threatening you, the fact that I might threaten you at some day in the future justifies nothing. Indeed, your argument is deliciously Hobbsian: your own statements prove conclusively that you might threaten me in the future; any time you get it in your head that I might threaten you, you will hunt me down and kill me. By your own expressed morality, the sensible thing to do would be to eliminate the threat by neutralizing you now.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 11:42:11 AM
Quote
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [X Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791. ME 3:146
There is obviously a differentiation between powers the state has and the rights of an individual. This seems elemental.
The power of taxation is exclusively the domain of the government. It has no analogy to the individual.
Quote
Appeal to authority, using an unsupported assertion. And besides, it's false. Murray Rothbard is one example, which suffices to disprove your claim.
In addition to the fact that I've never heard of him before, he was an economist. And you can always find some crackpot somewhere. It proves nothing.
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 11:46:57 AM
In addition to the fact that I've never heard of him before, he was an economist. And you can always find some crackpot somewhere. It proves nothing.
You said "none." I demonstrated one. Your appeal to authority of course included the implicit intention to discredit any authorities who disagreed with your position, so this comes as no surprise.
In any case, I await with interest your proof that "America" or "Canada" has an individual identity distinct from the persons making them up, and that those entities have rights and prerogatives that include, among other things, stealing, enslaving and killing. You have made no effort to prove this rather outlandish claim of yours yet.
--Len
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 12:19:42 PM
As it is, I made the claim that nation states have powers that individuals do not have. Among those are taxation, levy of troops, and yes, eminent domain.
Quote
The first case of eminent domain in English law is called the "Saltpeter Case" or the "King's Prerogative in Saltpeter Case". The English king needed saltpeter for munitions and took a saltpeter mine from a private individual. The private party sued the king and the court established the right of the sovereign to take "private property for public use" without liability for trespass but requiring payment of compensation for the taken saltpeter. When the colonies became the United States and the English Common Law was adopted as the law of the new nation, this principle was recognized. Contrary to popular belief, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution did not establish this right in the U.S., as it was already inherent in common law.
Post by: Paddy on September 18, 2007, 12:47:25 PM
Why can't we stay on topic?
Post by: RevDisk on September 18, 2007, 02:40:28 PM
If someone is pointing a gun at you, do you wait for them to shoot at you and hopefully miss, or do you draw and shoot before they can really draw a bead on you?
A more accurate description would be that someone is pointing a gun at you, so you turn and shoot a bystander who happened to live in the wrong neighborhood.
I am apparently amoung a minority these days that still believe certain elements of fundimentalist Islam are at war with us. We provided them a rally point and a training grounds in Iraq. Like the previous generation had the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a rally point and training grounds. We have diverted very significant resources from said war to nationbuilding and dealing with a low scale civil war.
Quote
Quote
The question is: does 2-3,000 deaths justify killing 30-100,000 people who had nothing whatsoever to do with those 2-3,000 deaths?
Utter fallacy. WE DID NOT KILL MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE! The insurgents, terrorists and factional-violence fighters did!
Those numbers are extremely low. According to the Iraqi Health Minister, as of Nov 2006, 100,000-150,000 directly war related deaths. Other sources claim mid 600k, if you include all deaths indirectly associated with the occupation. Most are due to infrastructure issues. Lack of electricity, clean water, sewage systems, hospitals, refrigeration, food distribution, etc. The current infant mortality rate is 47.04 (male 52.73, female 41.07) per 1,000 live births according to the CIA World Factbook. The Iraqi diaspora continues, of course. Several million Iraqis are leaving Iraq as refugees. Unfortunately, a lot of them are the educated and skilled employees. Including a lot of doctors. This will be problematic in restarting Iraqi's economy.
We bare some level of responsibility of those indirect deaths. Not complete, by a long shot, but some level. It's part of war. Not the celebrated or cherished part. In every war, primarily civilians die. Historically due to disease and starvation. Not soldiers, on either side. There is no way around it and it has been that way since the dawn of recorded history.
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 02:45:10 PM
If I had actually made any of those claims you might be right.
Appeal to authority. Yawn.
Quote
As it is, I made the claim that nation states have powers that individuals do not have. Among those are taxation, levy of troops, and yes, eminent domain.
You've claimed it. You haven't pretended to prove it. Where does a nation get "powers" from? How does the state exercise those "powers"? If you even try answering that question, of course, you'll fall into the obvious trap: a "nation" does nothing. Individuals do. How does A killing B come to be regarded as murder, while C killing D is deemed to be the action of "the nation"? Because C wears a uniform or badge of some sort?
--Len.
Post by: wooderson on September 18, 2007, 02:47:14 PM
Quote
Utter fallacy. WE DID NOT KILL MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE! The insurgents, terrorists and factional-violence fighters did!
This is an interesting conundrum. To what extent are you responsible for the unintended consequences of your actions?
This is one of the moral calculations that has to be made in regard to Iraq - how many people would have died under Saddam, under sanctions (nb: right-wingers and Clintonistas laughed off the suggestion that a half-million Iraqi children died over 12 years of sanctions) vs. how many people died in the initial invasion/'shock and awe' and as a result of the turmoil of the occupation?
We may not be responsible for those killed by insurgents: but are we not responsible for the existence of insurgents - unless someone were to argue that a religious civil war would have sprung up in Iraq with Saddam in power...
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 02:50:58 PM
Quote
Utter fallacy. WE DID NOT KILL MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE! The insurgents, terrorists and factional-violence fighters did!
This is an interesting conundrum. To what extent are you responsible for the unintended consequences of your actions?
That can be a hard question. But when your actions were illegal to begin with, you're much more liable. For example, if you happen one day to invade a nation and topple its government even though it had nothing to do with the claimed provocation (9/11, say) and posed no direct threat of any kind, and mayhem ensues. You're pretty culpable for that.
Interestingly, pro-invasion types try to claim responsibility for the chaos ("we broke it; we bought it") and deny it ("those people killed each other! We didn't do it!") in the same breath. It depends whether we're talking about withdrawal, or about body counts.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on September 18, 2007, 03:35:51 PM
Quote
But when your actions were illegal to begin with, you're much more liable.
Define 'illegal'. 'Illegal' by what standard?
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 03:38:17 PM
If I had actually made any of those claims you might be right.
Appeal to authority. Yawn.
Quote
As it is, I made the claim that nation states have powers that individuals do not have. Among those are taxation, levy of troops, and yes, eminent domain.
You've claimed it. You haven't pretended to prove it. Where does a nation get "powers" from? How does the state exercise those "powers"? If you even try answering that question, of course, you'll fall into the obvious trap: a "nation" does nothing. Individuals do. How does A killing B come to be regarded as murder, while C killing D is deemed to be the action of "the nation"? Because C wears a uniform or badge of some sort?
--Len.
A nation gets power by both the explicit granting to it via constitution or by common consent. But those powers are unique to the state, with no analogy to an individual.
Individuals act in their capacity as actors for the state. This was the whole basis of the Saltpeter Case.
How do you distinguish between a case of self defense and a case of murder? In the end with both someone is dead.
How do you distinguish between a police officer killing someone in the line of duty and murder? Because one wears a uniform?
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 03:44:49 PM
A nation gets power by both the explicit granting to it via constitution or by common consent. But those powers are unique to the state, with no analogy to an individual.
What do you mean by that, though? If the Iraqi Constitution bars Jews from citizenship, is there no basis on which to call this wrong? If the people of Burundi decide by common consent to slaughter all the Batutsis, is there no basis to call this wrong? WHAT LIMITS GOVERNMENT POWER?
You haven't even tried to address this question.
Quote
How do you distinguish between a case of self defense and a case of murder? In the end with both someone is dead.
As an armed citizen, I hope you know the answer: if the dead man posed an imminent threat of grave bodily harm, it was self-defense. Are you trying to equate the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqis who posed no threat with self-defense? On what grounds do you do so?
Quote
How do you distinguish between a police officer killing someone in the line of duty and murder? Because one wears a uniform?
EXACTLY THE SAME TEST AS ABOVE, because the police officer is nothing but a citizen who works in the security industry. But that's not your view, because to you the police officer is not simply a citizen like any other. He's an agent of the "state," which has powers transcending those of ordinary citizens. So you should be asking yourself that question.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 03:53:39 PM
A nation gets power by both the explicit granting to it via constitution or by common consent. But those powers are unique to the state, with no analogy to an individual.
What do you mean by that, though? If the Iraqi Constitution bars Jews from citizenship, is there no basis on which to call this wrong? If the people of Burundi decide by common consent to slaughter all the Batutsis, is there no basis to call this wrong? WHAT LIMITS GOVERNMENT POWER?
You haven't even tried to address this question.
Can a state do things that are wrong according to international law? Yes, like Iraq, which repeatedly violated UN resolutions and cease fire agreements.
Can a state do something you personally might consider morally wrong? Obviously. But that is pretty meaningless.
Quote
How do you distinguish between a case of self defense and a case of murder? In the end with both someone is dead.
As an armed citizen, I hope you know the answer: if the dead man posed an imminent threat of grave bodily harm, it was self-defense. Are you trying to equate the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqis who posed no threat with self-defense? On what grounds do you do so?
Quote
How do you distinguish between a police officer killing someone in the line of duty and murder? Because one wears a uniform?
EXACTLY THE SAME TEST AS ABOVE, because the police officer is nothing but a citizen who works in the security industry. But that's not your view, because to you the police officer is not simply a citizen like any other. He's an agent of the "state," which has powers transcending those of ordinary citizens. So you should be asking yourself that question.
--Len.
--Len.
And what is your basis for making that distinction between self defense and murder?
Post by: Paddy on September 18, 2007, 03:53:54 PM
Quote
EXACTLY THE SAME TEST AS ABOVE, because the police officer is nothing but a citizen who works in the security industry. But that's not your view, because to you the police officer is not simply a citizen like any other. He's an agent of the "state," which has powers transcending those of ordinary citizens. So you should be asking yourself that question.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, goes to the heart of the confusion. You see, in the lala land of libertarianism, everyone is 'equal' simply because they have a beating heart and lungs that exchange co2 for oxygen. Yes, Len, there is a "state" and it was established by 'social contract'. You're familiar with contracts, right? And that "state" was given certain powers through law for the purpose of securing peace, tranquility, and security for the grantors of those powers. Not really too hard to understand, is it?
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 03:58:44 PM
Yes, Len, there is a "state" and it was established by 'social contract'. You're familiar with contracts, right?
YES. Which is why I know your "social contract" is bunkum: a "contract" is a voluntary agreement. I never signed this "social contract" of yours, yet you believe I should be forcibly bound by its terms.
Quote
And that "state" was given certain powers through law...
Talk about circular! The state makes the laws! And you say it's given power by law? So in other words, they have certain powers because they say so! That's awesome. If you'll buy that, you'll obviously accept my claims to be the Messiah, and you'll bring me offerings of gold, frankincense and myrrh. I AM the Messiah! After all, the Messiah says so!
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 04:11:20 PM
Quote
But when your actions were illegal to begin with, you're much more liable.
Define 'illegal'. 'Illegal' by what standard?
I was stating a general principle. However, aggressive war is against international law, and also against 2,000 years of Western thinking concerning "just warfare." It's against the Geneva conventions. And it's immoral--i.e., against natural law. And finally, it's against the Constitution, on two fronts: the federal government is authorized to provide defense only; and only Congress has the power to declare war. There's no applicable standard that doesn't condemn the Iraq invasion as illegal.
...except one: the standard that says, "Whatever the US does is legal, because the US defines 'legal'--even when it breaks its own laws." Which brings us back to an earlier unanswered question: if the US defines what is "legal," then it would be perfectly legal for the US to launch a genocide if it so chose.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on September 18, 2007, 04:21:09 PM
Quote
YES. Which is why I know your "social contract" is bunkum: a "contract" is a voluntary agreement. I never signed this "social contract" of yours, yet you believe I should be forcibly bound by its terms.
Sorry Len. The founding fathers looked for you, but you just couldn't be found. They had to struggle through without you.
Quote
.except one: the standard that says, "Whatever the US does is legal, because the US defines 'legal'--even when it breaks its own laws." Which brings us back to an earlier unanswered question: if the US defines what is "legal," then it would be perfectly legal for the US to launch a genocide if it so chose.
Why don't you just move to Canada, or better yet, Europe. You'll be much happier there with the rest of the America haters. If you think the United States would 'launch a genocide', you're obviously not one of us.
Post by: Joe Demko on September 18, 2007, 04:36:33 PM
Quote
If you think the United States would 'launch a genocide', you're obviously not one of us.
There's a fair few who would say, not without justification, that the US did just that several times already. They're called Native Americans.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 04:38:08 PM
Quote
If you think the United States would 'launch a genocide', you're obviously not one of us.
There's a fair few who would say, not without justification, that the US did just that several times already. They're called Native Americans.
Post by: Paddy on September 18, 2007, 04:38:56 PM
Quote
If you think the United States would 'launch a genocide', you're obviously not one of us.
There's a fair few who would say, not without justification, that the US did just that several times already. They're called Native Americans.
Really? Then where do all these Indian casinos come from?
Go peddle your guilt somewhere else, Joe.
Post by: wooderson on September 18, 2007, 04:40:35 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 04:41:09 PM
Quote
But when your actions were illegal to begin with, you're much more liable.
Define 'illegal'. 'Illegal' by what standard?
I was stating a general principle. However, aggressive war is against international law, and also against 2,000 years of Western thinking concerning "just warfare." It's against the Geneva conventions. And it's immoral--i.e., against natural law. And finally, it's against the Constitution, on two fronts: the federal government is authorized to provide defense only; and only Congress has the power to declare war. There's no applicable standard that doesn't condemn the Iraq invasion as illegal.
...except one: the standard that says, "Whatever the US does is legal, because the US defines 'legal'--even when it breaks its own laws." Which brings us back to an earlier unanswered question: if the US defines what is "legal," then it would be perfectly legal for the US to launch a genocide if it so chose.
--Len.
What is this source for international law you are now invoking? Who voted on it? WHo made it? Where do I go to lobby against what I don't like?
Sorry Mike closed the thread.
But I reiterate my question: on what basis do you make the distinction between a killing in self-defense and murder?
Post by: Paddy on September 18, 2007, 04:46:00 PM
So if there are individuals remaining alive, it couldn't have been genocide? I know a few Jewish folk who might find that offensive.
Sorry wooderson. I can't go back to 1850 and change history to assuage your guilt. I guess you just have to deal with it.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 18, 2007, 05:06:38 PM
Post by: wooderson on September 18, 2007, 05:17:02 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 18, 2007, 05:20:49 PM
Not much of a response, Riley. Can we only term something a 'genocide' if the entirety of a given population is destroyed?
Indians were wantonly slaughtering Indians long before the 'white man' arrived. Yet you limit your indictment to the victors. Why is that, wooderson?
Post by: wooderson on September 18, 2007, 05:23:00 PM
What I questioned was your argument that the existence of modern American Indians (and their casinos) negates any claims one might make about genocide. Does that always hold true, or only for American Indians?
Post by: Paddy on September 18, 2007, 05:25:48 PM
Where did I refer to anything as a genocide, Riley?
What I questioned was your argument that the existence of modern American Indians (and their casinos) negates any claims one might make about genocide. Does that always hold true, or only for American Indians?
What I questioned was your argument that the existence of modern American Indians (and their casinos) negates any claims one might make about genocide. Does that always hold true, or only for American Indians?
I have no idea what you're talking about, wooderson. Apparently, you think you're on to something of substance. What's yer point?
Post by: wooderson on September 18, 2007, 05:28:59 PM
Quote
Really? Then where do all these Indian casinos come from?
Again: is an event only 'genocide' if the entirety of the targeted populace is destroyed?
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 18, 2007, 05:38:58 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 18, 2007, 05:42:03 PM
Your response to Joe's statement that colonists and the US had committed genocide against American Indians:
Again: is an event only 'genocide' if the entirety of the targeted populace is destroyed?
Quote
Really? Then where do all these Indian casinos come from?
Again: is an event only 'genocide' if the entirety of the targeted populace is destroyed?
Answer: No, for an event to be 'genocide' does not require destruction of the entirety of the targeted populace. Does that mean you 'win'? And will you declare the FMV of your 'winnings' on your tax return?
Or what?
Post by: Joe Demko on September 18, 2007, 05:56:37 PM
If this doesn't sit well with how you understand US history, please explain to me where I am in error.
Upthread a ways, this all got started because you were trying to make some kind of "America, love it or leave it!" statement, I believe. That's rather simplistic and I've come to expect better of you.
Post by: wooderson on September 18, 2007, 06:13:39 PM
Quote
Answer: No, for an event to be 'genocide' does not require destruction of the entirety of the targeted populace.
Was that so tough?
Post by: Paddy on September 18, 2007, 08:32:33 PM
I'm not trying to make you feel guilty, Riley. IMO, the treatment of the Indians could accurately be described as genocide and ethnic cleansing. There was a deliberate effort to remove the people and eradicate their cultures. How the various tribes got on with each other, and whether some even helped the colonists and US in destroying other tribes, is not germane.
If this doesn't sit well with how you understand US history, please explain to me where I am in error.
Upthread a ways, this all got started because you were trying to make some kind of "America, love it or leave it!" statement, I believe. That's rather simplistic and I've come to expect better of you.
If this doesn't sit well with how you understand US history, please explain to me where I am in error.
Upthread a ways, this all got started because you were trying to make some kind of "America, love it or leave it!" statement, I believe. That's rather simplistic and I've come to expect better of you.
I think you well know I won't withhold criticism of certain politicians who happen to hold temporary office in my country's government. I will not, however, panoptically condemn my country for any past transgressions. The United States of America has more than redeemed itself. This country has shed more blood for other people's freedom, given more of its wealth in hope of other people's survival, and opened its arms to more refugees and oppressed people than any other country or people in the history of the world.
You don't have to scratch me very deep to find red white and blue. I'm an American and proud of it and grateful for it.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 02:38:23 AM
I'm not trying to make you feel guilty, Riley. IMO, the treatment of the Indians could accurately be described as genocide and ethnic cleansing. There was a deliberate effort to remove the people and eradicate their cultures. How the various tribes got on with each other, and whether some even helped the colonists and US in destroying other tribes, is not germane.
If this doesn't sit well with how you understand US history, please explain to me where I am in error.
Upthread a ways, this all got started because you were trying to make some kind of "America, love it or leave it!" statement, I believe. That's rather simplistic and I've come to expect better of you.
If this doesn't sit well with how you understand US history, please explain to me where I am in error.
Upthread a ways, this all got started because you were trying to make some kind of "America, love it or leave it!" statement, I believe. That's rather simplistic and I've come to expect better of you.
Of course the terms genocide and ethnic cleansing were not invented until the last half of the 20th century, so calling it that is pretty anachronistic.
Judging past actions by present-day standards seems an exercise in futility.
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 02:56:48 AM
But I reiterate my question: on what basis do you make the distinction between a killing in self-defense and murder?
I answered that question very precisely. If you missed it, I suggest you take another look.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 03:03:57 AM
Quote
YES. Which is why I know your "social contract" is bunkum: a "contract" is a voluntary agreement. I never signed this "social contract" of yours, yet you believe I should be forcibly bound by its terms.
Sorry Len. The founding fathers looked for you, but you just couldn't be found. They had to struggle through without you.
Ponder that carefully, and you'll understand the issue: they can no more make a contract that binds the unborn than you can make contracts for your great-grandchildren.
Quote
Quote
.except one: the standard that says, "Whatever the US does is legal, because the US defines 'legal'--even when it breaks its own laws." Which brings us back to an earlier unanswered question: if the US defines what is "legal," then it would be perfectly legal for the US to launch a genocide if it so chose.
Why don't you just move to Canada, or better yet, Europe. You'll be much happier there with the rest of the America haters. If you think the United States would 'launch a genocide', you're obviously not one of us.
You are attacking the arguer, not the argument. As such, your cracks are duly ignored.
Note, however, that the US has consigned Japanese-Americans to concentration camps, slaughtered most (but not all) of the Amerindians and stolen their land, and enslaved fellow humans. Our track record is much better than Russia's, or Germany's, or Cambodia's, but our hands are not sufficiently clean to sneer. Nor can you complain that those things are all "ancient history"; in this decade in this millennium, we are responsible for between 60K and 1,000K deaths (counts vary tremendously), and over 2,000K refugees, in an undeclared war waged against a "sovereign nation" that neither had anything to do with 9/11 nor had any "weapons of mass destruction."
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 03:09:52 AM
I think you well know I won't withhold criticism of certain politicians who happen to hold temporary office in my country's government. I will not, however, panoptically condemn my country for any past transgressions. The United States of America has more than redeemed itself.
Heh. I'm sure that's very comforting to the 500K Iraqis who died during the "oil for food" years, or the Okinawans who've suffered since WWII, or the Kurds slaughtered because they trusted Bush I's promises, or the millions of "internal refugees" in Iraq today, or the families of the dead (that we can't begin to estimate, because Bush II "doesn't do body counts").
McRiley says we've redeemed ourselves! All is forgiven! Hallelujah! Suck that, dead Iraqis!
Quote
This country has shed more blood for other people's freedom, given more of its wealth in hope of other people's survival, and opened its arms to more refugees and oppressed people than any other country or people in the history of the world.
It's true that Americans are generous-spirited. They are willing to give. But government interventions, both monetary and military, have hardly been "for other people's freedom." Apart from the two world wars, which are sacred and may not be criticized, no other American conflict can plausibly be portrayed as altruistic. 1812? The Spanish-American war? Korea? Vietnam? Mogadishu? Kosovo?
Quote
You don't have to scratch me very deep to find red white and blue. I'm an American and proud of it and grateful for it.
I love what the founders envisioned. But not what it has become. A real American patriot would be caching cannon and powder at Lexington right now.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 03:34:13 AM
But I reiterate my question: on what basis do you make the distinction between a killing in self-defense and murder?
I answered that question very precisely. If you missed it, I suggest you take another look.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 03:47:31 AM
But I reiterate my question: on what basis do you make the distinction between a killing in self-defense and murder?
I answered that question very precisely. If you missed it, I suggest you take another look.
No, you answered what factors distinguished them. I am asking what makes those factors valid.
I'm not sure what you're looking for: I'm not going to say that their validity flows from their legality, at any rate. It's simple. The initiation of aggression against another is always immoral, and the use of force to repel aggression is always moral. That's a principle to which the law must be subordinate, in the sense that laws allowing or encouraging the initiation of force are inherently immoral, and laws forbidding defense against aggression are likewise inherently immoral.
Perhaps your intention is next to debate the philosophy of law, in order to "prove" that no moral principle can be "proven," and hence that moral relativism is the only viable alternative. If so I can save you a bit of time. Nonaggression is not an affirmative right; it's not something I "have," and therefore I need not prove that I "have" it. Rather, nonaggression is a negative right. It's not that I have a "right" not to be aggressed against; rather, it's that you have no right to do anything to me against my will. If you wish to attack or coerce me in some way, the burden is on you to prove that you have a right to do so. You will fail, leaving nonaggression as the only viable alternative.
If you choose to initiate aggression against me, I will defend myself. In that case, my action is consistent with both your and my principles! By my principles, you have no right to aggress against me, and I'm dealing with your immoral behavior. By your principles, apparently aggression is OK, so you can't complain when I use aggression against you.
If you paid attention, I just gave two arguments for non-aggression: the utilitarian argument, that I will act to repel your aggression; and a purely logical argument. In addition, nonaggression satisfies the universality principle: it's a moral principle which can always be applied equally to everyone. I.e., it doesn't divide humanity into two classes, the predators and the prey.
--Len.
Apropos, for your reading pleasure: The Cultural Contradictions of Statism
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 04:49:12 AM
The only reason that self-defense is an affirmative defense to murder is because that is how English Common Law (largely adopted here) defines it. In other legal systems there is no such right.
It is not obvious. It is not moral. It is based on English Common Law and thus the law of the land here.
That same English Common Law also distinguishes between a taking by the state (eminent domain) and by an individual (theft). It also distinguishes between levy by a state and enslavement by an individual.
You cannot say "I like this part of common law and think it is a 'natural right' but I dont like those parts of common law." That is inconsistent.
So if you think that there is a right to self defense then you must also admit a power of the state under draft and eminent domain. They are inseparable.
QED.
Thanks for playing Len.
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 04:54:14 AM
The only reason that self-defense is an affirmative defense to murder is because that is how English Common Law (largely adopted here) defines it. In other legal systems there is no such right.
Irrelevant. By your reasoning, a "legal system" that endorses killing Jews is on an equal moral footing with one that provides equal protection. I'd say it's confirmed that you're taking the position of moral relativism--which is funny, because there's a perfect refutation of relativism in Rabbinical tradition.
In any case, it looks like we're getting nowhere. I find your graphic rather disgusting. Have a nice day.
--Len.
Post by: roo_ster on September 19, 2007, 05:41:47 AM
So sorry, but the vast majority of Indians most likely died of disease, not by gunfire or bayonet.
I'm sure some colonists & early Americans wanted the Indians gone. They did not have the ability, by force of arms, to do so. Mother Nature, OTOH, came up with an 80% solution on her own.
Illegally Comatose?
I wonder, were all the folks who claim the war in Iraq "illegal" in a coma for a few years?
I distinctly recall Congress authorizing action by majority votes very similar to other Congressional authorizations going back to the Founding Fathers. Some had "Declaration of War" at the top of the bill, others had different wording amounting to killing the enemy and breaking his stuff.
I mean, if someone is going to cite Thomas Jefferson's writings to support one's position (appeal to authority, anyone?) on governmental authority, how much more substantial would it be to cite TJ's actions while POTUS exercising that authority?
Abridged List of American Wars
How many of the wars following the Am Rev had formal declarations of war containing the words, "Declaration of War?"
Quote
Colonial Wars -A series of wars involving the colonizing European powers of England, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden in North America and the Caribbean.
King William's War, (1689-1697)-Known in Europe as the War of the League of Augsburg AND as the War of the Grand Alliance and in North America as King William's War.
Queen Anne's War, (1702-1712)-Known in Europe as the War of the Spanish Succession, in North America as Queen Anne's War and in India as the First Carnatic War. This conflict also included the Second Abnaki War. The Abnaki Indian tribe allied itself with the French against the English colonists in North America.
The War of Jenkins' Ear, (1739-1743)-Fought between Britain and Spain.
King George's War, (1744-1748)-Known in Europe as the War of the Austrian Succession and in North America as King George's War.
French and Indian War, (1755-1763)-Known in Europe as the Seven Years' War and in North America as the French and Indian War. France forever lost possession of Quebec/Canada. In many ways, England's victory set the stage for the American Revolution.
Colonial Indian Wars (1609-1775)-A series of wars involving the colonizing European powers of England, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden and their colonists against the native tribes of North America.
American Revolution (1775-1783)- Also involved France, Spain and the Netherlands against Britain. The first Anglo-American War.
Indian Wars (1775-1890)-A series of wars involving the United States government and her migrating settlers with the native tribes of what became the continental United States.
Shay's Rebellion (1786-1787)
The Whiskey Rebellion (1794)
Quasi-War with France (1798-1800)
Fries's Rebellion "The Hot Water War" (1799)
U.S. Slave Rebellions (1800-1865)
Barbary Wars
Tripolitanian War (1800-1805)
Algerine War (1815)
War of 1812 (1812-1814)-The second Anglo-American War.
Invasion of Spanish Florida (1819)-Andrew Jackson seized Florida from Spain.
U.S.-Mexican War (1846-1847)-The United States invaded Mexico and forced the Mexicans to cede the northern half of the country and also to give up any claim to Texas.
Kansas Civil War "Bleeding Kansas" (1855-1860)-Guerilla warfare between pro and anti slavery forces.
Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry (1859)-Anti-slavery militant John Brown's attempt to jump start a slave rebellion.
Civil War (1861-1865)
U.S. Intervention in Hawaiian Revolution (1893)
Spanish-American War (1898)
U.S. Intervention in Samoan Civil War (1898-1899) with U.S. and British Naval Bombardment of Samoa --A resumption of past civil wars in which Samoan chief Mataafa seized power following the death of his rival, King Malietoa Laupepa, who had defeated him in the last Samoan Civil War (1893-1894). Fighting ensued, which was complicated by the long-standing rivalry between the U.S., Britain and Germany for de facto control over the Samoan Islands. On March 15, 1899, warships of the American and British Navies bombarded the Samoan city of Apia to intimidate the reigning Samoan king, who was allied with the Germans. An Anglo-American landing force took control of Apia, but were not able to pacify the interior. All sides agreed to cease fighting on May 13, 1899. Later that year, the three Western nations signed a treaty dividing Samoa between them. This whole conflict was part of a wider Samoan civil war.
Philippine-American War (1899-1902)
Boxer Rebellion (1900)-Also involved Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, Italy, Austria-Hungary against "Boxer" rebels in China as well as the Chinese government.
The Moro Wars (1901-1913)-Guerilla warfare against U.S. forces by the Moro Muslims of the southern Philippines. Can be seen as a continuation of the Philippine-American War.
U.S. Intervention in Panamanian Revolution (1903)-The U.S. landed troops in Panama to prevent Columbia from crushing the separatist Panamanian government.
The Banana Wars (1909-1933)-A series of U.S. interventions in various Central American and Caribbean countries.
U.S. Occupation of Vera Cruz (1914)-The U.S. landed troops in Vera Cruz, Mexico.
Pershing's Raid into Mexico (1916-1917)-After Mexican rebel Pancho Villa attacked a U.S. town, General Pershing pursued him across the border.
World War I (1917-1918)
Allied Intervention in Russian Civil War (1919-1921)-Also involved Britain, France, Japan, Italy, Poland and the Czech Legion against the new Bolshevik (Soviet Communist) government in Russia.
World War II (1941-1945)
The Cold War (1945-1991)
Korean War (1950-1953)-Also involved Britain, France, Turkey, and others against North Korea and China.
Intervention in Lebanon (1958)
Second Indochina War (1956-1975)
Vietnam War (1964-1973)--The "advisory" phase of U.S. involvement goes from 1956 to 1964, and then resumes from 1973 to 1975. The years 1964 to 1973 refer to the period of "official" combat deployment of U.S. forces in the war.
Cambodian Civil War (1970-1975)
Laotian Civil War (1960?-1975)
Dominican Intervention (1965-1966?)
Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979-1980)
Lebanese Intervention (1982-1984)
Grenada Invasion (1983)
First Persian Gulf War (1980-1988)-The U.S. gave logistical and intelligence information to Iraq in its war against Iran.
"Tanker War" (1987-1988)-The U.S. provided naval protection for Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. This led to multiple clashes with the Iranian military.
Panama Invasion (1989)
Second Persian Gulf War (1991)
No-Fly Zone War (1991-2003)
Somalia Intervention (1992-1993)
Occupation of Haiti (1994-Present)
Bosnian War (1995)-The U.S. and NATO engaged in air strikes to force the Bosnian Serb forces to negotiate a peace agreement. Also known as Operation Deliberate Force. U.S. airpower contributed 65.9% of the NATO air sorties.
bin Laden's War (1998-Present) -Terrorist conflict between the United States and irregular forces led by Osama bin Laden. The violence has also involved Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan and Afghanistan.
Kosovo War (1999) --Links Page
The War in Afghanistan (2001-Present)
The Third Persian Gulf War : "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (2003)--The second major war between the United States-led coalition and the Middle Eastern nation of Iraq. Military members of the coalition also include the United Kingdom and Australia.
Intervention in Haiti (2004)--Intervention to prevent civil war/anarchy in Haiti following the Gonsalves Rebellion against the Haitian government.
King William's War, (1689-1697)-Known in Europe as the War of the League of Augsburg AND as the War of the Grand Alliance and in North America as King William's War.
Queen Anne's War, (1702-1712)-Known in Europe as the War of the Spanish Succession, in North America as Queen Anne's War and in India as the First Carnatic War. This conflict also included the Second Abnaki War. The Abnaki Indian tribe allied itself with the French against the English colonists in North America.
The War of Jenkins' Ear, (1739-1743)-Fought between Britain and Spain.
King George's War, (1744-1748)-Known in Europe as the War of the Austrian Succession and in North America as King George's War.
French and Indian War, (1755-1763)-Known in Europe as the Seven Years' War and in North America as the French and Indian War. France forever lost possession of Quebec/Canada. In many ways, England's victory set the stage for the American Revolution.
Colonial Indian Wars (1609-1775)-A series of wars involving the colonizing European powers of England, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden and their colonists against the native tribes of North America.
American Revolution (1775-1783)- Also involved France, Spain and the Netherlands against Britain. The first Anglo-American War.
Indian Wars (1775-1890)-A series of wars involving the United States government and her migrating settlers with the native tribes of what became the continental United States.
Shay's Rebellion (1786-1787)
The Whiskey Rebellion (1794)
Quasi-War with France (1798-1800)
Fries's Rebellion "The Hot Water War" (1799)
U.S. Slave Rebellions (1800-1865)
Barbary Wars
Tripolitanian War (1800-1805)
Algerine War (1815)
War of 1812 (1812-1814)-The second Anglo-American War.
Invasion of Spanish Florida (1819)-Andrew Jackson seized Florida from Spain.
U.S.-Mexican War (1846-1847)-The United States invaded Mexico and forced the Mexicans to cede the northern half of the country and also to give up any claim to Texas.
Kansas Civil War "Bleeding Kansas" (1855-1860)-Guerilla warfare between pro and anti slavery forces.
Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry (1859)-Anti-slavery militant John Brown's attempt to jump start a slave rebellion.
Civil War (1861-1865)
U.S. Intervention in Hawaiian Revolution (1893)
Spanish-American War (1898)
U.S. Intervention in Samoan Civil War (1898-1899) with U.S. and British Naval Bombardment of Samoa --A resumption of past civil wars in which Samoan chief Mataafa seized power following the death of his rival, King Malietoa Laupepa, who had defeated him in the last Samoan Civil War (1893-1894). Fighting ensued, which was complicated by the long-standing rivalry between the U.S., Britain and Germany for de facto control over the Samoan Islands. On March 15, 1899, warships of the American and British Navies bombarded the Samoan city of Apia to intimidate the reigning Samoan king, who was allied with the Germans. An Anglo-American landing force took control of Apia, but were not able to pacify the interior. All sides agreed to cease fighting on May 13, 1899. Later that year, the three Western nations signed a treaty dividing Samoa between them. This whole conflict was part of a wider Samoan civil war.
Philippine-American War (1899-1902)
Boxer Rebellion (1900)-Also involved Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, Italy, Austria-Hungary against "Boxer" rebels in China as well as the Chinese government.
The Moro Wars (1901-1913)-Guerilla warfare against U.S. forces by the Moro Muslims of the southern Philippines. Can be seen as a continuation of the Philippine-American War.
U.S. Intervention in Panamanian Revolution (1903)-The U.S. landed troops in Panama to prevent Columbia from crushing the separatist Panamanian government.
The Banana Wars (1909-1933)-A series of U.S. interventions in various Central American and Caribbean countries.
U.S. Occupation of Vera Cruz (1914)-The U.S. landed troops in Vera Cruz, Mexico.
Pershing's Raid into Mexico (1916-1917)-After Mexican rebel Pancho Villa attacked a U.S. town, General Pershing pursued him across the border.
World War I (1917-1918)
Allied Intervention in Russian Civil War (1919-1921)-Also involved Britain, France, Japan, Italy, Poland and the Czech Legion against the new Bolshevik (Soviet Communist) government in Russia.
World War II (1941-1945)
The Cold War (1945-1991)
Korean War (1950-1953)-Also involved Britain, France, Turkey, and others against North Korea and China.
Intervention in Lebanon (1958)
Second Indochina War (1956-1975)
Vietnam War (1964-1973)--The "advisory" phase of U.S. involvement goes from 1956 to 1964, and then resumes from 1973 to 1975. The years 1964 to 1973 refer to the period of "official" combat deployment of U.S. forces in the war.
Cambodian Civil War (1970-1975)
Laotian Civil War (1960?-1975)
Dominican Intervention (1965-1966?)
Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979-1980)
Lebanese Intervention (1982-1984)
Grenada Invasion (1983)
First Persian Gulf War (1980-1988)-The U.S. gave logistical and intelligence information to Iraq in its war against Iran.
"Tanker War" (1987-1988)-The U.S. provided naval protection for Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. This led to multiple clashes with the Iranian military.
Panama Invasion (1989)
Second Persian Gulf War (1991)
No-Fly Zone War (1991-2003)
Somalia Intervention (1992-1993)
Occupation of Haiti (1994-Present)
Bosnian War (1995)-The U.S. and NATO engaged in air strikes to force the Bosnian Serb forces to negotiate a peace agreement. Also known as Operation Deliberate Force. U.S. airpower contributed 65.9% of the NATO air sorties.
bin Laden's War (1998-Present) -Terrorist conflict between the United States and irregular forces led by Osama bin Laden. The violence has also involved Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan and Afghanistan.
Kosovo War (1999) --Links Page
The War in Afghanistan (2001-Present)
The Third Persian Gulf War : "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (2003)--The second major war between the United States-led coalition and the Middle Eastern nation of Iraq. Military members of the coalition also include the United Kingdom and Australia.
Intervention in Haiti (2004)--Intervention to prevent civil war/anarchy in Haiti following the Gonsalves Rebellion against the Haitian government.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 05:50:12 AM
You have to understand that to some people nothing will make this war OK. So the try to delegitimate it by claiming it is "Illegal". According to what code of law that is so, I have no idea. The Congress declared it. The U.N. had given sanction for it. No court I am aware of ever issued a finding that it was illegal. Certainly no court with any jurisdiction. But there you have it.
So since the war is "illegal" it follows that our troops are engaging in illegal acts, like murder or terrorizing innocent Iraqis. As for murder, 150,000 Iraqis have died as a result Or is it 650,000? Or is it 550,000? When numbers have such disparity and the methods used to reach them so flawed, they have no validity at all. But lots of people died. And that's bad, right??
So this puts the Libertarians firmly in the Jane Fonda Camp, accusing US servicemen of war time atrocities, basically giving aid and comfort. I say we prosecute them for treason.
Post by: longeyes on September 19, 2007, 06:06:11 AM
Blackwater has told the Iraqi government to leave Iraq immediately.
Post by: Paddy on September 19, 2007, 06:38:27 AM
Quote
YES. Which is why I know your "social contract" is bunkum: a "contract" is a voluntary agreement. I never signed this "social contract" of yours, yet you believe I should be forcibly bound by its terms.
Sorry Len. The founding fathers looked for you, but you just couldn't be found. They had to struggle through without you.
Quote
Ponder that carefully, and you'll understand the issue: they can no more make a contract that binds the unborn than you can make contracts for your great-grandchildren.
Wrong. It's done all the time, with language that 'binds successors, heirs and assigns'. But beyond that, your argument is flawed. You're quite willing to accept and enjoy the freedom, wealth, security and all the other benefits handed down by our forefathers, while at the same time claiming you're not bound by the contract. Your actions are inconsistent with your claim.
Quote
.except one: the standard that says, "Whatever the US does is legal, because the US defines 'legal'--even when it breaks its own laws." Which brings us back to an earlier unanswered question: if the US defines what is "legal," then it would be perfectly legal for the US to launch a genocide if it so chose.
Why don't you just move to Canada, or better yet, Europe. You'll be much happier there with the rest of the America haters. If you think the United States would 'launch a genocide', you're obviously not one of us.
Why don't you just move to Canada, or better yet, Europe. You'll be much happier there with the rest of the America haters. If you think the United States would 'launch a genocide', you're obviously not one of us.
Quote
You are attacking the arguer, not the argument. As such, your cracks are duly ignored.
Note, however, that the US has consigned Japanese-Americans to concentration camps, slaughtered most (but not all) of the Amerindians and stolen their land, and enslaved fellow humans. Our track record is much better than Russia's, or Germany's, or Cambodia's, but our hands are not sufficiently clean to sneer.
Note, however, that the US has consigned Japanese-Americans to concentration camps, slaughtered most (but not all) of the Amerindians and stolen their land, and enslaved fellow humans. Our track record is much better than Russia's, or Germany's, or Cambodia's, but our hands are not sufficiently clean to sneer.
What action(s) can we take that would mitigate your guilt, Len? Should we dig up FDR, Custer, et alia, put them on trial, then hang them?
Quote
Nor can you complain that those things are all "ancient history"; in this decade in this millennium, we are responsible for between 60K and 1,000K deaths (counts vary tremendously), and over 2,000K refugees, in an undeclared war waged against a "sovereign nation" that neither had anything to do with 9/11 nor had any "weapons of mass destruction."
Who is 'we'? You just claimed you're not bound by any social contract, so how is it you include yourself? More inconsistency.
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 06:43:40 AM
You're quite willing to accept and enjoy the freedom, wealth, security and all the other benefits handed down by our forefathers, while at the same time claiming you're not bound by the contract. Your actions are inconsistent with your claim.
Right: the government is the fountain from which all blessings flow.
Quote
Who is 'we'? You just claimed you're not bound by any social contract, so how is it you include yourself? More inconsistency.
I'm using inclusive language to sound nice and friendly. It's true that I feel no responsibility to the crimes of the government, because I neither participated in nor condoned any of them. The case for "we" is somewhat ambiguous. I'm one of the American people; in that sense it's "we." But I'm not part of the American government, which is really committing the crimes, and in that sense "we" is no more applicable to me than it is to you. Less, because you condone it.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on September 19, 2007, 07:01:11 AM
I think you well know I won't withhold criticism of certain politicians who happen to hold temporary office in my country's government. I will not, however, panoptically condemn my country for any past transgressions. The United States of America has more than redeemed itself.
Heh. I'm sure that's very comforting to the 500K Iraqis who died during the "oil for food" years, or the Okinawans who've suffered since WWII, or the Kurds slaughtered because they trusted Bush I's promises, or the millions of "internal refugees" in Iraq today, or the families of the dead (that we can't begin to estimate, because Bush II "doesn't do body counts").
McRiley says we've redeemed ourselves! All is forgiven! Hallelujah! Suck that, dead Iraqis!
You seem obsessively focused on past events that no one can change. You have yet to answer what would bring about justice or at least assuage your angst?
Quote
You're quite willing to accept and enjoy the freedom, wealth, security and all the other benefits handed down by our forefathers, while at the same time claiming you're not bound by the contract. Your actions are inconsistent with your claim.
Right: the government is the fountain from which all blessings flow. rolleyes
Right: the government is the fountain from which all blessings flow. rolleyes
No one is forcing you to live with the U.S. government. You are free to leave anytime you want and go anywhere you want. You are free to start your own country if you so desire. In the meantime, your prostestations are not going to change anything here, and, quite frankly, your views are relegated to a small minority fringe. Apparently the arguments you present are not persuasive and compelling enough for the rest of us.
Thanks anyway.
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 07:10:48 AM
Suck that, dead Iraqis!
You seem obsessively focused on past events that no one can change.
That's just silly. The killing of Iraqis is ongoing. Your definition of "past" apparently includes this morning's breakfast.
Quote
Quote
Right: the government is the fountain from which all blessings flow. rolleyes
No one is forcing you to live with the U.S. government. You are free to leave anytime you want...
I wondered when you'd get around to that. "You've agreed to live without habeas corpus when you decided not to flee the country." That's ridiculous, of course; it's as if I came on your property and then demanded that you either obey me or abandon your property and move.
Quote
Thanks anyway.
No worries. Unlike you, I don't believe in coercion: I won't expel you from the country because you don't agree with me. I suggest you extend me the same courtesy: this being the "armed polite society," I am of course armed just as you are, and prepared to defend myself against aggression.
--Len.
Post by: Joe Demko on September 19, 2007, 07:13:17 AM
Quote
You seem obsessively focused on past events that no one can change.
Cool! An all-purpose excuse! Shakespeare phrased it a bit more prettily:
Quote
Things without all remedy
Should be without regard: whats done is done.
Should be without regard: whats done is done.
Of course, it was Lady Macbeth talking with her husband about his guilt over their murder of the king.
So, as long as it's in the past and can't be changed, we don't have to care! Yay!
Post by: Paddy on September 19, 2007, 07:41:12 AM
Quote
That's just silly. The killing of Iraqis is ongoing. Your definition of "past" apparently includes this morning's breakfast.
There's a lot of ongoing killing in this world. Why focus on Iraqis?
Quote
I wondered when you'd get around to that. "You've agreed to live without habeas corpus when you decided not to flee the country." That's ridiculous, of course; it's as if I came on your property and then demanded that you either obey me or abandon your property and move.
The hubris in that statement is mind boggling. Are you actually asserting an individual claim to this country that predates your birth? In any event, it's another attempted analogy. 'If this if that if the other thing yada yada'. If any of your hypotheticals were based in reality they wouldn't be hypothetical, now would they?
Quote
No worries. Unlike you, I don't believe in coercion: I won't expel you from the country because you don't agree with me.
How does 'you're free to leave anytime' morph into forcible expulsion?
Quote
I suggest you extend me the same courtesy:
That makes no sense. I do not have the power to either expel or detain you.
Quote
this being the "armed polite society," I am of course armed just as you are, and prepared to defend myself against aggression.
Good for you. Your RKBA is another benefit of living in this country which you claim has no jurisdiction over you but you'll take the goodies anyway.
Post by: Paddy on September 19, 2007, 07:43:43 AM
Quote
You seem obsessively focused on past events that no one can change.
Cool! An all-purpose excuse! Shakespeare phrased it a bit more prettily:
Quote
Things without all remedy
Should be without regard: whats done is done.
Should be without regard: whats done is done.
Of course, it was Lady Macbeth talking with her husband about his guilt over their murder of the king.
So, as long as it's in the past and can't be changed, we don't have to care! Yay!
I'm donning sackcloth and ashes and preparing to do penance right now Joe. I hope it helps ya.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 19, 2007, 07:52:43 AM
Post by: Joe Demko on September 19, 2007, 07:59:34 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 19, 2007, 08:04:52 AM
Good call, Riley! I'm heading to Ho-Chunk Casino this weekend and giving them more of my slot machine money, myself.
Good luck! They rob me blind every time, except for the Wheel of Fortune machines. But what the hey, I consider it penance for the sins of my fathers.
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 08:05:58 AM
Quote
That's just silly. The killing of Iraqis is ongoing. Your definition of "past" apparently includes this morning's breakfast.
There's a lot of ongoing killing in this world. Why focus on Iraqis?
I think you just said, "Why pick on me? All the other kids are killing people too! Waah!" I focus on what the US is doing because there's more chance (slim, but more) that other Americans will agree, and something will actually be done about it. I could do the same for Burundi, but being neither a Hutu nor a Batutsi, they're even less likely to pay any attention than my fellow Americans.
Quote
Quote
No worries. Unlike you, I don't believe in coercion: I won't expel you from the country because you don't agree with me.
How does 'you're free to leave anytime' morph into forcible expulsion?
It's more like, "leave or kiss your habeas corpus goodbye!" Your invitation to leave carries an implied threat: that the injustices that take place in America, such as loss of habeas corpus, loss of fourth-amendment protection, etc., leave one no alternative than to leave, or shut up and like it.
Quote
Good for you. Your RKBA is another benefit of living in this country which you claim has no jurisdiction over you but you'll take the goodies anyway.
My rights are inalienable. The US didn't give them to me. Luckily for me, the US hasn't infringed those rights (too badly) (yet). All hail the powers that be! They haven't taken away (all of) my rights (yet)! Blessed we are!
The founders disagree sharply with you. They considered our rights inalienable. That's something that transcends government, and which, if a government infringes them, makes it moral to change or abolish it.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 08:15:56 AM
Quote
Good for you. Your RKBA is another benefit of living in this country which you claim has no jurisdiction over you but you'll take the goodies anyway.
My rights are inalienable. The US didn't give them to me. Luckily for me, the US hasn't infringed those rights (too badly) (yet). All hail the powers that be! They haven't taken away (all of) my rights (yet)! Blessed we are!
The founders disagree sharply with you. They considered our rights inalienable. That's something that transcends government, and which, if a government infringes them, makes it moral to change or abolish it.
--Len.
Your rights are, pace the Founders (again an appeal to authority, Len?) rights are not inalienable. Rights are functions of society. Whatever society generally deems to be a right, is. You have no right to carry in NYC or Chicago. If you do, you'll be arrested. When you go before the judge and claim a 2A right, he'll laugh in your face. Appeal the decision, you won't get anywhere. That doesn't sound like an inalienable right to me.
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 08:24:28 AM
Your rights are, pace the Founders (again an appeal to authority, Len?) rights are not inalienable.
It's an appeal to authority, in case their authority impresses you: they did consider rights to be inalienable to all men. However, I would still consider rights inalienable if the colonies had lost the revolution, and the founding documents had never been penned.
Quote
Rights are functions of society. Whatever society generally deems to be a right, is.
In particular, if society generally deems a "final solution to the Jewish question" to be right, it is. I'm afraid I disagree with you, Rabbi.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on September 19, 2007, 08:29:30 AM
Quote
I think you just said, "Why pick on me? All the other kids are killing people too! Waah!" I focus on what the US is doing because there's more chance (slim, but more) that other Americans will agree, and something will actually be done about it. I could do the same for Burundi, but being neither a Hutu nor a Batutsi, they're even less likely to pay any attention than my fellow Americans.
Oh, now it's 'my fellow Americans'. You're all over the board. Do even listen to what you're saying?In any event, I'm not the one whining and crying about the horrible atrocities committed by this country. Nor am I handwringing and sniveling over infringement of my inalienable rights by this evil government. It seems to me these views are extremely egocentric. The world is not here to conform to your wishes, Len. YOU are not the center of all creation.
Quote
The founders disagree sharply with you. They considered our rights inalienable. That's something that transcends government, and which, if a government infringes them, makes it moral to change or abolish it.
Well, get busy. You won't get it done talking about it. Go cache some powder at Lexington or something.
Post by: K Frame on September 19, 2007, 08:54:12 AM
Actually, the Founders and Framers.... didn't, because even they didn't consider rights to be absolute in all circumstances.
The inalienable rights of life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness... let's take a look at those for a moment in the framework of the Founders/Framers...
First off, the Declaration of Independence is not a document of governance in the United States. It never was intended to be, nor has it ever been.
Yet, in the Constitution, those words are conspicuously absent, and in fact under the Constitution and subsequent US Code, the Founders/Framers set about any number of ways that those "inalienable rights" can be either curtailed or eliminated.
Under law, the government has the right to limit your liberty or your life if you act in a manner abhorent to society as a whole.
Rob a store, and you have forfeited your right to liberty.
Kill someone and you very well may forfeit your right to life.
The pursuit of happiness is a phrase that is overencompassing and inexact. What if your pursuit of happiness includes robbing stores and killing people? Oh well, you're SOL.
But what if you concept of a pursuit of happiness is running a tannery in your residential neighborhood? Same concept -- rights are no absolute when activities derived from those rights are abhorent to society as a whole.
To claim that all rights are inalienable and to try to say that the Founders/Framers supported that position is to bastardize their beliefs and the legacy that they left for us.
And, you know, this one is so damned far afield that once again, it's excruciating to read.
Closed.