GOP memo touts NEW TERROR ATTACK

by **mother** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 2:00 am

you hypocrite pan. You advocate all kinds of violence for entertainment. No capital punishment for war crimes, crimes against humanity? Bosh.

by **banned** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 2:43 am

...that they're not buying what you're selling, you don't shut your piehole and move on, you preen about how superior you are to them. Your entry into the pot debate came AFTER I had made it abundantly clear to FourthBase that I did not intend to change my views (which included legalization of pot, for those who didn't read the thread) to believe that the so-called therapeutic uses of pot outweigh the potential risks, but that if others wanted to take those risks it didn't make me no never mind. I wasn't trying to force MY views on anyone, only to prevent first FB and then you from trying to force me to agree with you by painting me as a troglodyte if I didn't. What I meant by your bad faith was that you kept studiously IGNORING my saying that my opinions on pot, however "idiotic" they might be in your view, did not lead me to interfere with anyone else using it, for cancer, for depression, or just for fun. In this thread (and by the way I did not read your quotes on nonviolence because I KNOW what it is and all the arguments for it and REJECT them) you tried to style me a violent murderer for favoring war crimes trials that adhered to all the principles of international law that BushCo has taken a dump all over for the last 5 years, you blathered on about my violent fantasies, as if wanting to see Bush (who has been running around the last week or so like an UTTER LOON defending his war policy--which I guess is good, he's committing political suicide) executed for lying the country into war and making this country into a lawless rogue (as The Economist, hardly a wacky lefty magazine of violent murderers, just said in their withering article) was the same as Scooter Libby imagining a bear raping a little girl. Are you so lost in your malignant narcissism you don't realize other people SEE what you're doing? You are BushCo writ small, out to discredit anyone who disagrees with you, and doing it by misrepresenting what they are saying: equating me with anti-drug wackos and machete wielding racists. That's the same Big Lie technique BushCo uses---lie about what someone says then set your straw man on fire. I am not falling for it. Nonviolence is a very noble and idealistic viewpoint which in my opinion has about as much utility in the world we actually live in as wishing on a star when it comes to removing the sources of the world's suffering, which mostly boil down to MEN who want more MONEY than any one person can ever spend and/or the POWER to run others' lives not for those others' benefit but for their own. These people will commit any evil including killing to get their own way. And regrettable as it is, sometimes the only way to stop those people is to kill them. As Halo said, had the Nazis been wholly extirpated after WWII the Bushes would have gone too and we would not now have a President who is Hitler minus the Chaplin mustache. This is a bad thing HOW? If I have a chance to try and execute a politician for proven monstrous crimes against his own citizenry and those of other sovereign nations, why would I not do it? To prove what a noble, evolutionarily advanced person I am? The Dalai Lama, who is whisked around the world in comfort and lives like royalty in Daramsala, advocates nonviolence while his people have been subjected to HORRORS they have not resisted at his urging. After Martin Luther King was assassinated--which he should have known was coming--the government began to flood the inner cities with drugs which ensured that most young black men would be drug addicts, or drug pushers, or gang members, die young, end up in jail--thereby preventing them from realizing that when the government starts SHOOTING nonviolent black men, black men who don't want to be destroyed had better FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT and not each other. By FIGHT I don't mean they should have immediately taken up arms but I mean they should have realized that you can't "work through a system" that targets your leaders for extermination. Your problem, professor, is you demonize everyone who disagrees with you. You refuse to admit that REASONABLE non idiotic people can differ as to whether the effects of marijuana on the brain, particularly on those with pre-existing depressive illness, might worsen someone's emotional problems. You refuse to admit that REASONABLE non murderous people can differ as to whether the best way to fight people who are out to kill you is to fight back with lethal force and possibly WIN, or be a noble and high principled martyr/dead icon. I'm about talked out on this puppy, but I want to say one more thing. How come when I get snotty as all hell, I still don't get moved to the Fire Pit? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> I can't believe I just spent 15 minutes writing this when I should have been watching "Surface." I love that little gremlin monster. The rest of the show sucks.

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:27 am

"How come when I get snotty as all hell, I still don't get moved to the Fire Pit?" There's a lot of snot flying all over this thread. I think that may be the best place for it.

by **banned** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:32 am

I made it to the Fire Pit! Oh thank you Jeff! [took ya long enuf <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> ]

by **banned** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:49 am

Policymakers on torture take note -- remember Pinochet Philippe Sands San Francisco Chronicle Sunday, November 13, 2005 Before embarking on international travels, David Addington and others who are said to be closely associated with the crafting of the Bush administration's policy on the interrogation of detainees would do well to reflect on the fate of Augusto Pinochet. The Chilean senator and former head of state was unexpectedly arrested during a visit to London on Oct. 16, 1998, at the request of a Spanish judge who sought his extradition on various charges of international criminality, including torture. The House of Lords -- Britain's upper house -- ruled that the 1984 convention prohibiting torture removed any right he might have to claim immunity from the English courts and gave a green light to the continuation of extradition proceedings. As counsel for Human Rights Watch, I participated in that case. This allowed me to witness the case firsthand. It also gave me the opportunity to chat with Pinochet's advisers, and one conversation in particular has remained vividly at the forefront of my mind. "It never occurred to us that the torture convention would be used to detain the senator," remarked the human rights adviser who had been involved in the decision by Pinochet and Chile to ratify the Convention Against Torture in 1988. Pinochet spent more than a year in custody before being returned to Chile on medical grounds. The adviser's words came back to me recently, during a debate with Professor John Yoo at the World Affairs Council of San Francisco. Yoo, a UC Berkeley law professor, is the author of legal advice that rode roughshod over the torture convention, and contributed to at least one opinion that ignored the well-established international definition of torture. These opinions are plainly inconsistent with the requirements of international law. They may have opened a door into the forbidden world of torture, and were perhaps offered as part of a policy on the part of the U.S. administration to allow more aggressive interrogation techniques in the "war on terror." Yoo was well aware of the torture convention. However, when I raised the Pinochet precedent in our debate, he seemed slightly taken aback. It seems he may not have turned his mind to the possibility that a legal adviser associated with a policy that permits torture contrary to international legal obligations could be subject to international investigation. How might this happen? The United States has led the world in promoting international human rights laws. It played a leading role in negotiating a global convention that would outlaw the use of torture in any circumstances. The convention sets up an elaborate enforcement mechanism. The United States and the 140- plus other countries that have joined the convention agree to take certain actions if any person who has committed torture is found on their territory. Such a person is to be investigated, and if the facts warrant, must either be prosecuted for the crime of torture or extradited to another country that will prosecute. The convention intends to avoid impunity for this most serious of international crimes by removing the possibility that the torturer will be able to find any safe haven. This was the basis for Pinochet's arrest in Britain. The potential problem for Yoo, vice presidential chief of staff David Addington and others who may have been associated with torture, is to be found in Article 4 of the convention. This section criminalizes not only the act of torture itself but also other acts, including "an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture." Can the mere drafting of legal advice that authorizes a policy of torture amount to complicity in torture? Any case will turn on its particular facts. A prosecutor would have to establish that there was a direct causal connection between the legal advice and the carrying out of particular acts of torture, or perhaps a clear relationship between the legal advice and a governmental policy that permitted torture (or turned a blind eye to it). That evidence is not yet established, and it would be inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of any investigations that may be carried out in the future. Nevertheless, those associated with the legal opinions and their surrounding policies should be aware that there is case law from Nuremberg that suggests that lawyers and policymakers can be criminally liable for the advice they have given and the decisions they have taken. In the case of United States vs. Josef Altstotter, some of the accused were lawyers who had been involved in enacting and enforcing Nazi laws and Hitler decrees that permitted crimes against humanity. None of the defendants was charged with murder or the abuse of a particular person. They were charged with participating in a governmentally organized system of cruelty. As the tribunal put it: "The dagger of the assassin was concealed beneath the robe of the jurist." Eight of the 14 were convicted in December 1947 for "complicity in international crime." It is not just lawyers who should beware. Some media reports have suggested that a chief architect of the policy that gave rise to the legal advice was Addington, who has recently been appointed as the vice president's chief of staff, after Lewis Libby's indictment and resignation. If Addington did play such a role, and if further evidence emerges that acts of torture resulted from the existence of any such policy, then he too may wish to reflect carefully before embarking on foreign travels. Responsibility may go even higher in the administration's hierarchy. These are early days in understanding the precise relationship between the administration's policy on detainee interrogations, the legal advice and the allegations of abuse at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. There is a need for a full and independent investigation. There is an urgent need to bring into law Sen. John McCain's sensible and welcome proposal to explicitly ban abusive treatment and give effect to the United States' obligations under the torture convention. In the meantime, the Pinochet and Altstotter cases and the torture convention should serve as a salutary reminder of the growing reach of international criminal law. The possibility cannot be excluded that the Pinochet precedent will come back to haunt Addington, Yoo and others in the Bush administration. International law is not just for other people in other countries. Ignoring it will not be cost-free, including worries about foreign travel, as former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori learned last week when he was taken into custody in Chile. Philippe Sands is professor of law at University College London and a practicing barrister. He is the author of "Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking Global Rules," published by Viking. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:53 am

Banned, since you are so bad ass and in the middle of planning the overthrowing, surely you know this term: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>provocateur, n : a secret agent who incites suspected persons to commit illegal acts [syn: agent provocateur<hr></blockquote> Not saying you are one, but you sure will be victim of one if you really are actually doing something out there rather than just talking tough. This is Jeff's board, and he is asked people not to advocate violence. You chose to ignore that. Personally, I'd ban your ass to match your name. Why don't you go google "Sherman Austin" while you are at it. Went to jail. Website and all files destroyed. Swat teams, guns drawn. Whole bit. Thing is, it's not YOUR fucking website you are risking. It's Jeff's. You want to advocate assassinations or executions or whatever the hell fantasy you play in your head, that's fine. Get your own blog.

by **professorpan** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:59 am

Banned, my faithful, long-suffering antagonist, I'm happy you found yourself smoldering in the fire pit (and your moniker is banned, after all -- makes poetic sense you'd feel most comfortable in the underworld). One quick parting word or two before I leave you in the flames: Life isn't all anal probes, ritual abuse, Israeli plots, bloody fangs, and all-seeing gummint cabals. Life is crying babies, smiling grandmas, wet grass on bare feet, kitty cats, and sloppy kisses with someone you really, truly love. It's a beautiful world out there if you just learn to shut off your fucking computer once in a while and open your eyes. I wish you happiness from the depths of my narcissistic, pedantic heart. May you eventually find peace. PP

by **Gouda** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:11 am

Damn it, right as I want to post something respectable it gets put in the Pit. And probably caught in the DE-Banned crossfire. Oh well, I go for it anyway in response. Here’s to obscurity: ***** OK, even the despicable Lindsey Graham (R-NC) was far-sighted enough (at least until 2006 mid-terms) in his tunnel vision to state, contra Cheney’s dream torture legislation, that “we must not become the enemy to defeat the enemy.” He was of course referring to detainee “terrorists”. Most of us on this board have a different recognition of who the terrorists are. At least we basically agree on this. Banned would have us brush up on our Machiavelli, brandish our weapons and burnish our guillotines. I agree to a point: we are well advised to know our enemies, know their MO, their mindset, what they eat for breakfast; step into their cloaks for a moment, feel the power, the evil – get a taste of that bitter juju; better we know how to handle a weapon or two; know which punches they throw; get that game face on. Know thy enemy. I see no disconnect between that and what Jeff’s blog and this Board are doing – arming ourselves with knowledge and networking our intelligence. Getting it out there and possibly pre-empting a crime or two (or making them more difficult). It is only one facet of a possible multi-front approach. Organizing may gel. Now, Banned’s main point is that there is a sharp distinction between the guilty murderers and the Court that would sentence them to death in kind. I would say, well, that is a powerful reflex to think so. But it must be examined more deeply. If we are into deep politics, we must also consider deep justice. Transformative justice. Justice and Law has evolved over time, you can not deny that. Banned, I know you are one to say, fuck that, this pondering deep justice while murderous perps are out slaughtering everyone behind our deeply-contemplative backs. OK, I feel that rage too, I really really do. I just believe, truly, as the once-armed-but-transforming Zapatistas do, that the means one chooses can be no different from the ends one desires. There was a right time for armed insurgency – but it was not the end. Think, what is beyond the end? We despise these thugs operating on the “ends justify the means” credo. The means one chooses can pervert your ends irrevocably – and come back to haunt you, or your children. 50 years down the road, Banned Jr. is talking the same talk because the enemy of the enemy has become the same old enemy. So let’s talk means. What is most effective? I happen to think non-violent (which does not preclude dangerously imaginative, aggressively creative, shape-shifting, clandestine, overt, subversive, productive, visible, invisible, and moral) techniques can be far more effective, and can put The Fear into an elite better than can blustering morons all militia-style just asking to get swept up by far superior techno-firepower. The Elite chuckle at our violent harangues and say, hey, ain’t we got ‘em by the brain stem! I also see powerful arguments for armed insurgency, but it ain’t my thing to shoot stuff. I would be the cook for such a commandante, or something, if that is what the masses so choose, armed style. I’m not shooting nothing unless in self-defense. The Elite sure don’t like their Banks and McDonalds or cars to get all bashed up in violent protests, but what is that really to them? Mere electronic accounting hocus pocus. Creative balancing. Pish posh. No problemo. Hurts the locals more than it hurts them. What they would not like is a united, sustained, massive boycott, por ejemplo. We can even put posies in our nosies ‘cuz if we ain’t buying their shit we are shutting down their accounting, and that hurts ‘em a little more. Alongside pondering ultra-violent revenge, we might also want to learn about living a little more hungry if it takes that to get to where we got to go. We can learn more from Proldic about other means to pressure for real change. But boycotting does not get them behind bars. Now if you are talking about vigilante take-outs, fine, but that skips over your rightful respect for legality, due process of law, high tribunals and such. How we get them behind bars is beyond me right now. That is why I am here, inter alia. So let’s imagine Judgment Day rolls around, when we have all the perps rounded up, the guillotine hoisted and ready, gleaming with latent vengeance. That is the time to stop time and think about what it means to have these perps rounded up and declared “guilty as charged” after due process. How did that happen?! Most likely it was a civil process which took extraordinary measures, extraordinary sacrifices, in extraordinary times. If indeed we had them all in a kennel, something damn good must have happened, some kind of righteous process must have played out. If I were the executioner that day, standing aside the guillotine, I would think, wow, what a day of joy this is – how much has already been accomplished – and what an opportunity to change the future course of history. A magnanimous day, a day where the entire corpus of historical justice is summed up and the potentiality of future justice is embodied. I would on worldwide satellite TV have them all stocked into place at the many, many guillotines, drum roll and all, counting backwards from 10, slowly….3..2..1…and then refuse to drop the blades. This is the day when anti-gravity makes its worldwide debut. I would keep them locked there and have their (living) victims come one by one to tell them their stories; to tell them what they need to tell them, as long as it takes. Give the victims a voice and force them to listen even if they do not hear. This, I KNOW, would be worse than death for them, and they would be begging for the blades to drop. I would then put them to work in positions around the world to undo the damage they have done. A reverse New World Order. I’d put Bush and Cheney to work in Chavez’ cabinet. Since Chavez has special words for Condi, we might designate her as special envoy to the impoverished barrios of Caracas. She will enjoy 24-hour surveillance a la Martha’s ankle bracelet and escort by a few of Chavez’ fellow paratroopers. Kissinger and Poppy, hmmm…what can we do with them?? This is an imaginative exercise, pure fantasy, granted, but this is a discussion board after all, I’m discussin’, and so you see my point that this is something which in my opinion hints at another approach. “What you don’t know can’t hurt them.” And here we arm our minds. However, it’s when we think we know it all, that we feel entitled to stand as an executioner. I would never feel comfortable in that position despite my rage - and believe me, I have tried to imagine myself in a position to judge and execute someone who had raped and/or killed a loved one – very fucking hard to tell what I would do, and so I can only speak for now, what I think/hope I would do, and that would be to kick out for another way to justice (which embodies the means to get there). By no means would the punishment be pleasant. By the way, the question of the right to stand in judgment over others is very deeply examined in Camus’ The Fall and informs my choice of quote earlier. I just really believe that imagination and humility trump violence and vengeance, and can be far more effective. “The meek shall inherit the earth”: oh they don’t like that one. They can kill the meek all they want, but with that goes their moral base – watch the neocons fall upon their sword as they righteously slaughter those who they believe, as strongly as you, are the true incarnation of evil in this world. MLK and Malcolm X are beings fated to serve humanity in a transubstantiated state - their moral means strengthen and guide us now as much as when they were mortal. We may disagree, but that is no reason to get the knickers in a knot especially when I think we have more in common against the perps than not - and so there is no need to be divisive. To be clear, I am certainly not advocating any kind homogenous approach, groupthink, or ideological hegemony. That would be tragic. We are diverse, we can and do play different roles, we each have different skills and backgrounds, passions - and this is our real strength. Open-source uprising, if we want it. Maybe not here, with this Board. But elsewhere, everywhere… Am I talkin’ shit here? I feel like I could be. But some of it feels right.

by **banned** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:28 am

DE, if you think that the hangings of General Yamashita and the Nuremberg defendants were "violence", you are so hopeless that talking to you is a serious waste of my time, k? What other violence have I advocated, other than saying that our enemies are going to give us the choice between fighting on our feet or dying on our knees and that I intend to choose the former? Again, like panster, your arguing techniques are dirty, as not a few people have pointed out elsewhere on this board, and I decline to get engage with you, under any name you may choose to use. prof wrote: "Life is crying babies, smiling grandmas, wet grass on bare feet, kitty cats, and sloppy kisses with someone you really, truly love." I'm gonna fwow up. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/sick.gif ALT=":x"> Tell me how many crying babies the US has orphaned since the CIA began to dictate our foreign policy, how many smiling grandmas were bombed to ground meat in their hooches in Nam. Tell me whether the Abu Ghraib detainees felt wet grass on their bare feet as they were being tortured by Lynndie England. Tell me how the little Iraqi boy who lost both arms can hold his kitty cat. And how you kiss anyone when you have no head because it's been shot off to make the world safe for Halliburton. May your jejune sentimental shite serve you well if YOU end up in a concentration camp with no rights. Party on dude. Gouda, on the other hand, your words are heartfelt and at one time I agreed with you. Yes, I argued my ass off in the early 1970s in favor of the use of nonviolence to end violence. But it's 35 years later and what I've seen in those 3 1/2 decades have convinced me that the only way we are going to fend off a police state is to fight, and most probably to die in large numbers. All you nonviolence devotees are welcome to die nobly without ever taking a swing at your killers. I sure won't stop you. To be frank, the more of you that die early in the struggle the better since dividing the resistance by arguing over tactics pretty much ensures we'd lose. Organizing the last stand of the Warsaw Ghetto I'm sure was hard enough without having somebody yammering at you as you were putting Molotov cocktails together about how if you threw that sucker out the window you'd be just as bad as the Nazis in the Panzer tank toodling down the street below you. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> Dream on, little dreamers, dream on, at least until you run into the reality that your position is going to require your martyrdom. I don't believe any of you are made of that stern stuff--sorry. If you were you'd be out on the mean streets of inner cities teaching satyagraha to gang members, not bloviating on a blog about what a spiffy idea it is (in theory, of course). As Julius Lester once said "You have to deal with reality or it will deal with you." When the slap hits you with sufficient force to knock some fillings out of your teeth, we'll see how much you feel like turning the other cheek.

by **banned** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:43 am

...of the US government, the current inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue lost in 2000 and would have lost in 2004 absent electoral shenanigans so obvious even John Kerry noticed. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> SO at the moment the last person we KNOW was legitimately elected President was Albert Gore who won Florida, won the popular vote and won the electoral vote. Last time I looked, in domestic or international law, advocating removing and executing a usurper who broke the law in order to seize power does not constitute opposition to a legitimate government. It constitutes restoring the legitimate government. So it seems to me all you nonviolent folks who favor being nice to Chimpy are actually traitors to the legitimately elected Commander in Chief, and maybe we ought to try, convict and execute you too. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **Dreams End** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:18 pm

You know, with your chosen nickname and with your evident delight at finally having a thread moved to the firepit, I'd say really that this is all just a big joke to you anyway. Speaking of jokes, sense of humor is something else we differ on. I didn't really find this funny: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> So it seems to me all you nonviolent folks who favor being nice to Chimpy are actually traitors to the legitimately elected Commander in Chief, and maybe we ought to try, convict and execute you too.<hr></blockquote> (By the way, I did mention my support of the Zapatistas, but there is a reason they wear masks in public. ) And really, I didn't find this one too funny either: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> ."construct a joke about... ...a sexual abuse victim." OK, I didn't make this up, someone at my last job told it to me, and then to the new temp as I stood there begging him not to since our department had already had a temp quit because we weren't, er, Politically Correct. Ready? Q: "What's the best thing about fucking a 7 year old girl?" A: "You can flip her over and fuck a 7 year old boy." I'm not sure why you wanted that, but there ya go. <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm35.showMessage?topicID=2.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...ID=2.topic</a><hr></blockquote> I'd call you a troll, except I don't think anyone pays that much attention to these strange, juvenile antics of yours. Perhaps you are just an incompetent troll.

by **AnnaLivia** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:45 pm

i just read through it all, and obviously i don't know what banned said that Jeff edited out, so please know that i don't know what i missed. ok, that said, i'll give my opinion. i oppose the death penalty, but only because it can't be administered 100% without mistake. as long as there is any chance of an innocent person being executed, i have to be against it. but i'm not against it on other grounds. moral grounds. i do believe society has a right to draw a line in the sand, over which one may not step and still claim the right to draw breath. there's guy in prison here in iowa, who kidnapped a little girl, drove her to different locations all night long, torturing her, bashing her head with rocks, choking her near to death, raping her repeatedly, etc...and who had his own 8-year-old son in his pickup truck with him through it all. the little half-dead girl sat naked on the seat next to the man's son, as he drove around to the next stopping point. i'll stop the description there, to spare you any more horror. this man was caught, and confessed. he sits in prison for the rest of his life. now, do you suppose that miss little-bo-peep here, could pull whatever lever would end his life? you better bet your ass i could. i'd have to steel myself really well to do it, but i could do it. like i said, the only reason i don't want him to be executed is because i know this country has "legally" put over 250 people to death, who were afterwards PROVEN innocent beyond doubt. i am willing to spare this guilty person, and provide him room and board, for that one, and only that one reason. like i said, i oppose the death penalty on the grounds it can't be administered 100% mistake-free. if it ever could be (i don't see how, but if..) i'd remove my objection to it. as for bushco, unless it was in what was edited out, i saw banned call for trials, convictions, and then punishment. as long as that's the case, i don't see a problem. i've said myself that what these guys LEGALLY deserve, as the law now states, is to be hung at dawn as the traitors to this nation that they are. i'd rather there was no death penalty, but i can't see one reason they should be exempted from whatever the law does say. make no mistake, i would take no joy from executing anyone. it should never be relished. such an ultimate and irreversible punishment should be meted out with solemn regret that it must be done. (hey, DE...i just knew i'd find a place where we disagreed sooner or later, dude!)

by **banned** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:34 pm

I just love how people are now piling on and only later, if at all, reading the whole thread. I don't know what Jeff cut out, because I didn't archive my own posts. However, what opened me up in this thread to the opprobrium of people who, based on their performance elsewhere on the board, to be oppropriated by is a badge of honor, was simply saying that I favored trying the administration and Congress for treason, war crimes and war profiteering in the same manner the Japanese and German architects of an unjust aggressive war were tried, and upon conviction, hanging them as those other convicted defendants were hanged. (Perhaps, given the reading comprehension problems some of the folks have, my comment about the marsupial was too obscure: I favored REAL trials, not kangaroo courts or show trials, and if in fact some of the defendants were found not guilty on the preponderance of the evidence obviously they would not be included in the executions.) Somebody else, I now forget who, opined they'd like to execute people at the New York Times. That was not me. I also said that I do not feel that we can escape becoming the slaves of a police state if our only weapon is nonviolence, and that I am not a believer in the effectiveness of nonviolence. For the record, this is not the same as espousing violence, except in the heads of those devotees of Bizarro Logic who have been busting my hump in this thread (oddly, Halo and others who have also challenged the effectiveness of nonviolence have not been piled on, just me.) No matter how many times I've tried to clarify this all it's gotten me is the panster's sententious blather and now a flurry of the Usual Suspects who fight dirty in their arguments flying in locusts when the dust up was winding down. I think when we get to the point where a person is vilified for considering the Nuremberg trials a good thing, a high water mark of civilization in fact, and a fitting, just conclusion to a war that began with such atrocities as the Rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor, death camps, and the attachment of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland (for starters) to the Third Reich to provide 'lebensraum' (which would of course be 'judenfrei') one of two things is going on. One, some folks have taken their sheltered upbringings and their adolescent New Age wish fulfillment fantasy beliefs and tried to apply them to the real world of politics, and they just can't handle it when someone points out the reality of history and the fact that sometimes the only way to prevent atrocities is to fight back. Even the frickin' Dalai Lama agrees with that, but not some of the people on this board who keep repeating "MLK and Gandhi" without noticing that MLK didn't succeed in ending racial prejudice and the only reason satyagraha didn't get every single last practitioner or espouser of it killed stone dead is because Gandhi was using it on the Brits and not, oh, say the Nazis or Stalin. Two, some folks are sore because the Nuremberg prosecutors and judges DID, if not finish off Nazism, make espousing it radioactive for half a century. I could use Bizarro Logic myself, and say that if you are not in favor of 'terminating with extreme prejudice' leaders who are guilty of starting illegal wars, promoting genocide, carrying out assassinations in other sovereign nations, etc., then you are IN FAVOR of their agendas, but that would be in most cases a cheap shot. In some cases of course it would be the simple truth. Some people do not agree that the US government *IS* guilty of war crimes, even though the buzz on most of the PLANET is that it is, and not just for Iraq which is only the latest example of the peculiar delusion of the American people that we who cannot even run our own country have the right to go run other peoples'. Anna, you may feel free to consider me a troll, because I consider your posts the equivalent in pixels of a an effluvium of road apples tumbling from the puckered intestinal exit of an equine. As for thinking it's a joke, I don't think the world situation is a joke, but I think some of the players who strut and fret about on the world stage, not to mention on Internet blogs, are comical as hell. But I can't win, can I? If I laugh at such people, I'm wrong, if I recommend bringing back the guillotine for those who forget that their power in government derives from the will of the people and not from some divine right to rule inherent in them, I'm wrong. Since I'm always wrong anyway, I try to have a few laughs along the way, and if that irritates mine enemies, ahhh, I shall sleep better at night so knowing. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **banned** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:54 pm

As for the joke about sexual abuse, someone else raised the issue and I related the joke. I didn't find it funny either, as someone who was raped as a toddler and spent years being treated for the physical sequelae. But as is the custom of your dirty argumentational style, you took it out of context. Also, re: this statement: "So it seems to me all you nonviolent folks who favor being nice to Chimpy are actually traitors to the legitimately elected Commander in Chief, and maybe we ought to try, convict and execute you too." Yes, I said that, and yes, I followed it with a laugh icon because I knew it would make certain people go apeshit when they read it, but NOW HEAR THIS: It's already a fact that Gore won in 2000 and that the SCOTUS should not under the principles of states rights which its conservative members supposedly espouse should not have disturbed the decision of the FloriDuh Supreme Court. It should have refused to consider Bush v. Gore at all. And IF IN FACT it is ever PROVEN in a court of law that the Ohio results in 2004 were tampered with, then all the Bushyboy-lovers are going to be faced with the fact that they supported someone who had NO RIGHT to the Presidency. None. Zip. Nada. Bubkis. Therefore, whatever violations of domestic and international law said Bushyboy and his 2CrookedCrew perpetrated were without even the shadow of cover that might be given to a legitimate head of state. In other words, they'd try George W. Bush and Richard Cheney not as President and Vice President of the United States but as principals in a coup d'etat against the rightful President and Vice President of this nation. The Congress that acted as courtiers to the usurper and ANYONE ELSE who gave their allegiance to him would in fact have been traitors in the eyes of the law. BushCo and its supporters have spent FIVE YEARS calling anyone who disagreed with their murderous schemes TRAITORS. Well guess what? One day that Procrustean shoe may well be on the other foot. Seem far fetched? On Election Night 1972, when my Republican Nixon loving Daddy was ridin' high and I was weeping drunkenly into my Strohs beer, neither of us expected the Man of the Hour would resign in disgrace less than 2 years later. In 1942 I doubt any preening SS officer would have believed that in 3 years the 1000 Year Reich would be smoldering ruins and its leaders dead, exiled, or...hanged after conviction for war crimes. Old Chinese proverb: If you sit by the river long enough, the bodies of all your enemies go floating by.

by **banned** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 8:09 pm

...just came across this bit of Hallmark(TM) card wisdom from you, Anna, in a thread on the main board...I guess laughing is fine as long as you get to be Der Komissar of Vat Ist Funny, JA? " We ALL need to laugh at ourselves, and WITH each other. Our egos are trying to kill us! Weï¿½ll perish, without the laughter! Welcome to the dance-dance revolution!" And there's sour old banned pointing out 22 year old boys at Walter Reed aren't doing much dancing now because they left their legs on a roadside in Iraq. They weren't killed by their egos, they were killed by a war built of lies while the good citizens of the US of A danced and had another nonfat mocha latte with organic cinnamon hold the nutmeg.

GOP memo touts NEW TERROR ATTACK

Then take this,

The problem, panster, is when someone tells you...

come to think of it...

I did it! I did it!

Pinochet...Fujimori...Bushyboy?

provocateurs

Good things

Re: Ain’t we got ‘em by the brain stem!

So much BS, where do I start?

Oh, and as far as favoring overthrow...

Re: Oh, and as far as favoring overthrow...

wow. i just now found this thread

I'm no troll, but this thread is an asshole magnet :D

PS...Anna....

Oh and speaking of hypocrites...

Who is online