Re: Treason, 2pid, plain and simple


"John Atkinson" <stereoeditor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5d24c8d5-39b7-4c83-bc90-6f2d85870eaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 9, 12:10 pm, ScottW <Scott...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
the judges who ordered these detainees be treated like
US citizens accused of a crime are treasonous, I agree.

Let's look at a relevant legal reference:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized."

Doesn't specifically state "US citizens." Okay, how about another
reference:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All true. But I have a personal confession. One reason I seldom participate
in these rao discussions, even preferring to "bait the bear" instead, is the
almost uniform failure, or blindness, or unwillingness, to probe beneath the
surface. It seems as if the sole preoccupation is to find the highest moral
or legal steed to mount, the better to peer down on the others. In college,
I roomed with a guy who was majoring in International Law. His perspective
was similarly limited; he would analyze Darfour or Zimbabwe from th legal
perspective.

The more fascinating aspect, and I do find it quite puzzling that rao
debaters ignore it, is that we live in an immoral world in which most norms
are honored in the breach. Long ago, one Venetian wrote "The Prince", which
was a tome on the subterranea that constantly undermines these norms.

The discussion is about issues that are already in the past, since neither
candidate will allow them to continue. But I have never seen a discussion of
the why. Why did Rumsfeld condone torture? It's critical to understand this,
because without it, we ignore the fact that under severe duress, governments
can collapse, societies can become mobs, and fringe groups look for the
opportunities of murder and mayhem. It can all happen in an instant. JA,
take a good look at the Foley building. The reason it resembles a fortress
is because is one. It was built in response to the Civil War riots that, in
spirit, at least, are well pictured in the movie, "The Gangs of New York."

I have a remarkable ability to read faces and voices. The day after 9/11,
there was a televised news conference from NYC. One of the officials
displayed the most remarkable rendition of fear I have seen from a public
official. Several days later, it came out that there had been a rumor of a
nuke in NYC, which had, somehow, been disproved. But following that, there
was tremendous concern about the possible existence in this country of a
fifth column of unknown size, extent, and organization. It would not be the
first time. In the 30's, there was the Bund, while before and after,
communists did manage significant penetration of the State Department and
the atomic establishment. It could be said we gave the bomb to everybody.

If I were The Prince, I know what I would do. Faced with the logistical
impossibility of determining the "fifth column", I would resort to
psychology to influence the behavior of the constituent elements. The
constituents use the complex psychology of martyrdom to motivate themselves,
but the psychology has a *** in the armor: fear of failure to achieve
martyrdom, with the result of custody by The Enemy. It would appear to me
that one very important reason for Guantanamo was to interdict the thought
processes that lead to "successful" martyrdom.

In the short history of modern democracies, an interesting characteristic
has been observed: Under outside pressure, the quality of rights erode, and
when the pressure is removed, the quality is regained. How do historians
regard the bombing of Coventry? There is direct culpability for civilian
deaths, and an indirect argument that allowing Coventry to be bombed saved
lives. How does Churchill, "Man of the Century", escape the same brush that
tars dictators?

If someone responds to this, please don't assume I advocate anything. It is
challenge enough to explain why governments act as they do. Rather than
justify, what comes next?

I think we can afford to be better now. I think I will vote for Obama. But I
see no reason to find a policy for living or governance that I can declare
perfect, the better to look down on moral absolutists on other horses.

These usenet arguments are boring to me, because they always seem to be "out
of history." We must remember that new history is being created constantly,
most of it unpleasant. Having once been a physics student, The Bomb is more
real to me than to other people. It could be lurking anywhere, perhaps in a
basement in Queens or Brooklyn. Waiting, perhaps, to take away all these
cherished things of arguments, of usenet, of breath, life, freedom. Waiting,
perhaps, to turn a well oiled society into a cankerous mob.

JA: I have your recording. I am simply looking for a chance to do it the
honor. One doesn't uncork Napoleon for lunch :)

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511






.

Loading