"We're hoping that the Canadian public will recognize that if you put aside any concerns or guilt or innocence... and look at the compassion we feel, that children have a special significance in society," (Canoe News/CP).Why in the world would I want to put guilt or innocence aside?
...in a courtroom, no less.
Given the strong emotional response from the public to the video, Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae cautioned that Khadr's fate should not be subject to a "popularity contest."
"He was brainwashed and sent in to fight NATO troops. I think we all recognize that's deeply troubling to Canadians," said Rae.
"We have our troops there, obviously it's deeply troubling to all of us. The issue is not that. The issue is, isn't it appropriate for Canada to take responsibility for Mr. Khadr?"
Canada?
Nope. I wasn't involved and none of my friends were either.
But, heck, I'll go with the brainwashed bit for the sake of argument. Let's see where that takes us...
So... If not Omar, how about the parents taking responsibility and paying the appropriate price? Would that work for you, Bob?
After all, isn't responsibilty a direct correlate to control? Who controlled him, Bob? It wasn't "Canada" pulling Omar's strings.
53 comments:
Things are what they are. Omar wasn't killed, so things will play out with that as a fact.
That said, as far as I can tell, I appreciate your visit. I no more hold all who identify as Muslims responsible for the decisions of Omar and his parents than I do all Canadians for Omar's present legal situation.
Ron,
Muslims Against Sharia is a dishonest sock-puppet shill of the Pajamas media crowd. This person is not even a Muslim.
Ignore his neo-con nonsense. He's been cutting and pasting this same comment all over.
That being said, I believe we should repatriate Khadr simply because he is not facing a fair trial.
Apparently the initial reports was that he did NOT throw the grenade, that it was someone else (who was killed) - a report that was later changed. He has faced torture and maltreatment (withholding of proper medical treatment for his wounds) for 6 years, most of that being held without a charge. His lawyers have not been able to access the "evidence" against him, judges who make favourable rulings for the defense have been dismissed. At his trial he will face evidence extracted under torture and duress. He has been denied habeas corpus.
On those grounds alone he should be brought to Canada to face a charges and a proper trial, that follows the rules of evidence and the Magna Carta. Regardless of his age.
That Khadr was subjected to this when he was 15 only adds to the reasons to bring him back.
I remember when it was the Soviet Union that did stuff like this and this kind of treatment was why we had to fight the evil of Communism.
My how times have changed.
Mike, why is that every stupid fuck feels that he is an expert on who is a Muslim and who is not? Just because some people do not conform to your Muslim stereotypes, doesn't mean that they are not Muslims. Would every Christian advocating against the Inquisition not be a real Christian? Would every Mike who does not blow cousin dad be not a real Mike?
PS
There was an error in the previous comment.
Mike: I'm not at all familiar with Muslims Against Sharia (which is why I added "as far as I can tell") but I do understand why Muslims would be against Sharia law--and that many are.
I'm all in favour of this: "a proper trial, that follows the rules of evidence and the Magna Carta. Regardless of his age."
MAS: Mike may or may not know you well enough--I don't know. I do know that Mike is a long, long way from being a stupid fuck. You'd only think that way about him, MAS, because you don't know him. ;-)
MAS: re "Assuming that little shit is not a terrorist, but an enemy soldier and Geneva convention applies to him, he must be confined until the cessation of hostilities, i.e., until the war on terror is over. No trials. You can't have it both ways."
What I don't know is how much of Omar's behaviour constitutes "willfulness"...which is to say that he strikes me as being more a pawn of his parents direction and wishes than, say, a 20 year old who decides to join an army and fight of his own free will. That said, 15 year olds aren't exactly kids, and he wasn't playing with a chemistry set; he was toying with explosives. I try to be generous on borderline cases, but that's just my nature.
Then--as you note--there is the legal and moral difference between "terrorist" and "soldier", and you're right that soldiers are held till the end of hostilities or released in exchange by some other process. Terrorists are thugs and have no such protection, given that force/coercion, not reason, is the only currency in play.
As for Mike and you--I choose not to use "stupid" when merely "ignorant" might better fit the bill. Stupidity and ignorance are completely different things. Mike may be ignorant of you and your organization (and I'm sure that's what you'd claim), but he's not stupid; he's well capable of understanding and of receiving and gaining knowledge.
I will tell you this that I *know* of Mike: He's a person of integrity and someone I'd trust completely with my life or my money. And, if he's respectfully approached and shown to be in error, he'll say so. So, admittedly, he may be mistaken about you--but, if so, I trust that he's still honestly working with the best information he has about you so far (which may all be second-hand, t'is true), which is all reasonable people can ask of anyone.
My thinking is that if you tried to change Mike's mind with some better evidence than he presently has, it would be worth your while as well as his.
"I try to be generous on borderline cases, but that's just my nature."
I hear you. However, are you willing to risk having him get off so he could blow up your family? Call me a heartless prick, but I'm not. Khadr family members are known al Qaeda sympathizers. I don't really care whether he wants to blow me up because he was brainwashed or he wants to blow me up because he is evil.
As for Mike, when someone makes definitive conclusions based on his ignorance, he IS stupid. A man has to know his limitations; if he doesn't he is anything, but smart.
"Mike: He's a person of integrity"
How can you call someone a person of integrity if he is willing to defame others just because he disagrees with their politics?
"if you tried to change Mike's mind with some better evidence"
Would you try to change my mind if I called you a dishonest shill for some Left-wing crowd and claimed that you are not who you say you are? Or would you tell me to fuck off?
Anyway, I see little reason to concern myself with what inconsequential people like Mike think about us. You can't please everyone. Our discussion about child v. terrorist is much more interesting.
MAS: more later tonight...busy at work :-(
Sure, and for the record, this post is not the only one where the dumbfuck friend of yours spreads lies about us.
Hi MAS:
First, to the part you don't find so interesting, because I do.
You ask: "Would you try to change my mind if I called you a dishonest shill for some Left-wing crowd and claimed that you are not who you say you are? Or would you tell me to fuck off?"
I'm telling you--and people who know would likely back me up--that I'd probably go to some effort to try to change your mind. There is a point where I'd tell you to fuck off, but it wouldn't be right away.
Just like right now: I think you've totally misapprehended Mike's values, and you've clearly been graphic with your distaste for him--and still I'm not telling *you* to fuck off :-).
You wrote: "One would ask, what is the reason for this idiocy? The answer is simple. Ignorance. Complete and utter ignorance.
And that might be exactly it. But, as I noted, ignorance is not stupidity. And I'll remind you that people are more likely to be wrong with integrity than they are to be either neglectful or indifferent with integrity.
I'll also make this point: people with integrity should act in a manner consistent with their best evidence. My best evidence is that Mike has integrity; he might well be wrong, but I've never known him to outright reject respectful disagreement, and I've known him to change his mind or mediate his stance in the face of better evidence. So, I still think that if you respectfully tried to change Mike's mind with some better evidence than he presently has, it would be worth your while as well as his.
I've explained myself at some length on that, so the rest I'll leave between you and Mike.
Now to Omar: I'm in some quandary because there's a lot I don't know. I accept that anyone older in his position would be assumed to be a combatatant, but his age compounded with the difference in accounts of what happened and why he was there make me think it would be fair and sensible to have a court decide whether or not Omar's an enemy combatant and a culpable adult.
I have no pressing reasons to trust the Bush government, but I do have much more respect for American military personnel, and--generally--adequate respect for American judiciary.
I'm not convinced Omar's case should or needs to be tried in a Canadian court and I don't think Canada is in any real position to insist Omar be repatriated; Omar *was* unarguably on the scene of conflict with American forces.
In the meantime, I don't think it's disrespectful or unfair to Omar to treat him as an adult unless or until it's clearly shown he lacks the capacity for individual moral decisions. I actually think that's more respectful (and a better error even if wrong) than to assume he's a child and therefore not responsible for his actions. I think jumping to that conclusion *would* be disrespectful and it's the same reason, for example, that I'm no fan of the Young Offenders act when it comes to teenage people.
"But, as I noted, ignorance is not stupidity."
Not always, but as I said if you make repeated definitive claims based on your ignorance, you're stupid. If I ran around the Internet posting definitive claims that you like to take it from behind without knowing it, wouldn't that make me a stupid asshole?
"My best evidence is that Mike has integrity"
What is it, a joke? What integrity? An asshole who is trying to defame someone because he has different political views has no integrity. Isn't Mike's post proof enough?
"So, I still think that if you respectfully tried to change Mike's mind with some better evidence than he presently has, it would be worth your while as well as his."
We just going to have to disagree on that. I just think it's a waste of time.
"I'm in some quandary because there's a lot I don't know."
I see your point. However, when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt, I'd rather give it to the government that to a terrorist suspect. I also think that the government professionals are in better position to make a right decision than you and me.
As for providing Khadr access to civil courts, I think it is a mistake, because our civil court system have proven time and against that it is not equipped to deal with terrorism. Consider trials of El Sayid Nossair, Sami al-arian, HLF, Liberty City Seven, to name a few. All were either complete or substantial failures, because proving intent beyond the reasonable doubt is not always possible. Terrorism is a military issue. Trying to apply Western law enforcement standards, as history shows, doesn't work.
"unless or until it's clearly shown he lacks the capacity for individual moral decisions."
No one who takes up terrorism has any "capacity for individual moral decisions."
We just going to have to disagree on that. I just think it's a waste of time.
Like I said, I'll leave that between you and Mike.
when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt, I'd rather give it to the government that to a terrorist suspect. I also think that the government professionals are in better position to make a right decision than you and me.
Then, a military court.
No one who takes up terrorism has any "capacity for individual moral decisions."
Not quite my point. I didn't mean *correct* individual decisions; I just meant the capacity for independent decision making, the ability to do more than just follow.
"Then, a military court."
As I mentioned before, as an enemy combatant he has no right for a trial. He could be detained until the cessation of hostilities or used in prisoner exchange.
As I mentioned before, as an enemy combatant he has no right for a trial. He could be detained until the cessation of hostilities or used in prisoner exchange.
Yes, but isn't the exact point of contention whether or not Omar *is* properly considered an enemy combatant as opposed to a manipulated, brainwashed--albeit possibly consequently dogmatic--kid dragged to a firefight?
That would be the reason for a court.
I'm curious: do you know how many, if any, other similarly aged people are being held as combatants?
I think the issue is between whether he is and unlawful combatant or enemy combatant, not between whether he is an enemy combatant or a brainwashed child. And why should anyone care if he is (was) a child? He should be judged by what he did, not who he was.
why should anyone care if he is (was) a child?
Because children, when and if they are demonstrably children, are a tricky special case when it comes to moral culpability. Things are much clearer when it comes to adults.
And because we're supposed to be the good guys. Cowboy way and all that. And because I try not to drop my ethical standards just because I'm angry.
Laws, the Geneva Convention included, are about what is legal; they are not a sufficient guide to ethical behaviour.
He should be judged by what he did, not who he was.
He should be judged considering both.
Should the 12-year-old who beheaded a man on video for being an "American spy" be also judged as a child?
"How can you call someone a person of integrity if he is willing to defame others just because he disagrees with their politics?"
I am rather MAS, going on our many previous meetings at Stageleft and elsewhere, where you were found out and exposed a few months ago after your first round of cut-and-paste jihad.
The entire point is, child or not, before we judge anyone to be a terrorist or a murderer, we need to see some pretty hard evidence of such. In Khadr's case we did not.
Again, Khadr was captured near a firefight. He was imprisoned without trial or charge and subjected to torture and maltreatment from 15 onwards.
His lawyer, a Lt Cmdr in the US Armed Forces (a Marine I believe) now says there is evidence that the medic dies from fragments from a US grenade, not an old Russian one that the insurgents were using. In short, it may have been friendly fire.
I don't know if Khadr is guilty or innocent (though the case against him, what we know if it, is weak), but I do know he is not getting a fair trial at the gulag in gitmo. I find it shocking that the US government has decided the US Constitution and the Magna Carta and 800 years of Common law are too inconvenient to deal with enemies.
When I was a kid, it was the Soviets and Cuba and the East Block that did this and it was evil. Now its the US.
As far as I can tell, its still evil.
"I am rather MAS, going on our many previous meetings at Stageleft and elsewhere, where you were found out and exposed a few months ago"
If you think that calling you a dumbfuck makes us non-Muslims (which was the main proof of Stageleft degenerates), you are even dumber than we thought.
"we need to see some pretty hard evidence of such"
No, all we need is a fact that he was picked up on a battlefield. That earns him detention until the cessation of hostilities.
"Khadr was captured near a firefight."
Tell me again, why does Ron insist on you not being stupid?
"In short, it may have been friendly fire."
Assuming that the lawyer is correct, it may matter for the trial, not for the need of the trial.
"I don't know if Khadr is guilty or innocent"
The (undisputed) fact that he was fighting for Taliban when he was caught, makes him guilty enough to be held until the cessation of hostilities. After that he must be either charged with war crimes or released.
"gulag in gitmo."
Only an ignorant dumbfuck like you would compare Gitmo to Gulag.
"I find it shocking that the US government has decided the US Constitution and the Magna Carta and 800 years of Common law are too inconvenient to deal with enemies."
That's because you're to stupid to understand that neither of them applies. However, assuming that you are not a moron, you are welcome to quote any part of the US Constitution, Magna Carta, British or American common law that deals with enemy combatants, either lawful or not.
"As far as I can tell, its still evil."
Yeah, well, since your moral compass is as dysfunctional as your brain, nobody really cares what you consider evil.
Should the 12-year-old who beheaded a man on video for being an "American spy" be also judged as a child?
Maybe. Seriously. Maybe.
However, the unarguably adult monsters who chose to put the 12 year old in that position--and made him willing to do it--are the real enemy, aren't they.
Look, MAS, I have no problem with killing a 12 or 15 year old who's trying to kill me. I wouldn't like it, but I also wouldn't hesitate; not for a second. When it's simply kill or be killed, I will kill.
But things change once the critical incident is over. That's when reason and compassion and the other things that make real humans human come back into play. That's when it's proper for me to again concern myself with the quality of *my* humanity.
Assuming that the lawyer is correct, it may matter for the trial, not for the need of the trial.
What does *need* have to do with it at this point, MAS? Maybe a trial is a good idea just because--strictly required or not--it says something better about *us* than our enemies.
The (undisputed) fact that he was fighting for Taliban when he was caught, makes him guilty enough to be held until the cessation of hostilities.
Again, just because something can be justified, doesn't mean that you have to do it that way. There are still other options.
Only an ignorant dumbfuck like you would compare Gitmo to Gulag.
I'll accept that the comparison is hyperbole, but there's no shortage of that coming from you, either, MAS :-)
you are welcome to quote any part of the US Constitution, Magna Carta, British or American common law that deals with enemy combatants, either lawful or not
Well, like I described above, once the critical incident is over, we are quite able and quite free--and it is proper--to view enemy combatants as also human--and the letter (and more importantly, the spirit) of the Magna Carta, the Consitution and British and American common law all speak volumes about being humane.
And anyways, as I also mentioned before, laws are a guide to what is legal; they are not sufficient as guides to what is right and wrong.
In my life, right and wrong is for *me* to decide. I say trial, and sooner is better than later.
nobody really cares what you [meeaning Mike] consider evil
Not true. I do.
And I care what you think, too, MAS.
"However, the unarguably adult monsters who chose to put the 12 year old in that position--and made him willing to do it--are the real enemy, aren't they."
Not really. Ten years from now this 12 year-old will be 22 and he'll indoctrinate another 12-year-old to do the same thing. Anyone who enjoys beheading a human being is a monster, regardless of age.
"But things change once the critical incident is over."
That's why Khadr should be in prisoned, not killed.
"What does *need* have to do with it at this point, MAS?"
The main issue with Khadr is whether or not he deserves the trial.
"Again, just because something can be justified, doesn't mean that you have to do it that way. There are still other options."
Yes, but the other options seem a lot less pragmatic.
"I'll accept that the comparison is hyperbole, but there's no shortage of that coming from you, either, MAS :-)"
Don't you think that comparing Gitmo to Gulag is similar to Durbin's description of American troops as fascist? I find it quite insulting. I don't care that much when someone is insulting me personally. But when some dumbshit insults the very people who guarantee his freedom, it crosses the line.
"the Magna Carta, the Consitution and British and American common law all speak volumes about being humane."
I don't see anything humane in releasing someone who is likely to murder again. That inhumane in regards to his potential victims.
"I say trial, and sooner is better than later."
We're just going to have to disagree on that.
Assuming that the lawyer is correct, it may matter for the trial, not for the need of the trial.
Who said anything about not needing a trial? I fully support the need for a trial. I just want it to be a fair trial, that seeks the truth and is based on good evidence, proper disclosure and the protection of the individual's rights. You know, the same rights you MAS (or whatever your new sock puppet name is) would expect if imprisoned and tried.
The (undisputed) fact that he was fighting for Taliban when he was caught, makes him guilty enough to be held until the cessation of hostilities. After that he must be either charged with war crimes or released.
That would then make Khadr a prisoner of war and entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions. There was no such thing as an "illegal combatant" until Bush made the term up.
The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time of the US invasion. Fighting for the Taliban made one fighting for the government and a captured Taliban fighter was then a POW. So why not treat them like a POW? Why the torture, interrogations, withholding of medical treatment?
It is the Geneva Convention, the Magna Carta, the US Constitution and the respect for individual rights and liberty that actually makes us better than Islamists and backward Afghan warlords. Why would we throw that away? Why are we not being the example of how to properly deal with these guys.
I don't see anything humane in releasing someone who is likely to murder again. That inhumane in regards to his potential victims.
Again with the straw man. No one as far as I can tell is asking that Khadr be released, they simply ask that he be transferred to Canada to be charged and tried under our criminal law (and we do have the criminal law to d4eal with this) because the kangaroo court of the Military Commissions Act is not designed to produce fair trials.
Don't you think that comparing Gitmo to Gulag is similar to Durbin's description of American troops as fascist? I find it quite insulting. I don't care that much when someone is insulting me personally. But when some dumbshit insults the very people who guarantee his freedom, it crosses the line.
Gitmo is a prison where people have been held without charge, without access to lawyers while facing torture, duress and interrogation techniques based on those used by the Red Chinese in the 50's. "Gulag" is perhaps the most polite way to describe it.
Most of the people there were not captured by US or allied forces, but sold to them by warlords and members of the various tribal factions.
I really don't care if you are insulted. Last time I checked, there is no right not to be offended. And I have news for you - my freedom is is guaranteed by me, my friends and my kin, not by the citizens of a foreign nation, fighting half a world away against an enemy utterly incapable of harming me.
Every time I read your posts all I see is an angry person trying to justify his fear and hatred of Muslims and going out of his way to apply rules to them that he would be loathed to have applied to himself. That is hypocrisy.
I don't particularly care if you like me or think I'm a 'dumbshit'. At least I'm not pretending to be something I am not, nor am I saying I'm for liberty and freedom and then turning around and advocating the most anti-liberty, pro-authoritarian activities of the likes used by despots and dictators the world over.
My moral compass is just fine.
"Who said anything about not needing a trial?"
Do you even bother to read what you're replying to?
No, you fucking moron. A terrorist or an enemy combatant DOES NOT have the same rights as a law-abiding citizen.
"That would then make Khadr a prisoner of war and entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions."
Ignoring the fact that you are either too lazy to read the GC or are too stupid to understand what is says, it still does not give him a right to a trial.
"The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time of the US invasion."
Bullshit. It was a gang of thugs who ceased partial control of the country. Taliban was only recognized by two countries as a government. You have a better shot at legitimacy if you declare yourself a king of Canada.
"Fighting for the Taliban made one fighting for the government and a captured Taliban fighter was then a POW."
Not according to GC, for at least two reasons: no recognizable insignia, no adherence to the rule of war.
"Why the torture, interrogations, withholding of medical treatment?"
When a dipshit like you keeps repeating bullshit about "the torture, ... withholding of medical treatment" it does not become true.
"Why would we throw that away?"
Why use them when they don't apply? Why not apply some SEC regulations?
"Why are we not being the example of how to properly deal with these guys."
If YOU consider something as proper, it doesn't mean that it IS proper.
"No one as far as I can tell is asking that Khadr be released"
If Khadr is charged under toothless Canadian criminal law, there is a chance he will be released and murder again. Some people (especially someone like you, with selective morality) are willing to take that chance. Some are not. There is a good reason Clinton refused to take bin Laden in '96.
"because the kangaroo court of the Military Commissions Act is not designed to produce fair trials."
Another opinion of an idiot with selective morality. You must really love the sound of your own voice.
"Gitmo is a prison where people have been held without charge, without access to lawyers while facing torture ... Most of the people there were not captured by US or allied forces, but sold to them by warlords and members of the various tribal factions."
As I might have mentioned before, when you keep repeating your bullshit, it does not become true.
"And I have news for you - my freedom is is guaranteed by me, my friends and my kin, not by the citizens of a foreign nation,"
What a dumb fucking moron! If it weren't for the USA, you'd be speaking either German or Russian by now.
"fear and hatred of Muslims"
Apparently, you're too fucking stupid to differentiate between Muslims and Islamofascists, which is not a big surprise. However, if you weren't so fucking stupid, you would have known that Islamofascists murder more Muslims than everybody else combined.
"That is hypocrisy."
No, hypocrisy, or rather hypocritical stupidity is confusing "Muslim" with "terrorist" and blaming it on someone else.
"I don't particularly care if you like me or think I'm a 'dumbshit'."
It doesn't matter what I mean, but you prove it with your every post.
"My moral compass is just fine."
Coming from a hypocritical moron this probably shouldn't be taken at face value, just as the rest of your baseless bullshit. Your problem is that you're too dumb to understand the difference between an opinion and a fact. And the fact that you take any opinion that suits your agenda as a fact, proves how "fine" your moral compass really are.
"No, you fucking moron. A terrorist or an enemy combatant DOES NOT have the same rights as a law-abiding citizen. "
Why not? I thought that kind of individual liberty was a HUMAN right? At least that's what the Declaration of Independence says...
Hmm, how does one prove that a person is a terrorist or an 'enemy combatant'?
A trial maybe? Oh that's right according to the Military Commissions Act, an 'enemy combatant' is anyone the President says is an 'enemy combatant'.
Yes, please keep screaming obscenities at me and avoiding the main crux of the issue.
You think that a person or a state should have the power and authority to arbitrarily imprison someone without proving a case in an open and free court.
You are willing to give up your liberty for some illusion of security from 'Islamofascist' huddled in caves on the other side of the world.
I am not. My freedom is at greater risk from authoritarian actions of those who pretend to 'protect' me without my permission from people who pose no danger to me. All to grab power and authority. My freedom is in greater danger from 'Red state fascists' and bed-wetting Conservatives, than from any of my actual Muslim friends and nieghbours. Or from Khadr.
I am more than willing to throw Khadr into the pen, as soon as it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a free and open court that he did what he was accused of doing.
How does believing in that make me a 'dumbshit' or have a broken moral compass? I am arguing FOR the Western system of justice, which works pretty well for the most part. Clearly you don't like it and is arguing against it- just like the Taliban and Al Queda.
I'm sure though if you keep call me a dumbfuck, or stupid, enough times you'll look really good.
"Why not?"
Are you trying to lend more credence to your fucking moron label?
"I thought that kind of individual liberty was a HUMAN right? At least that's what the Declaration of Independence says..."
So, according to you, incarceration of every single inmate violates the Declaration of Independence?
"Hmm, how does one prove that a person is a terrorist or an 'enemy combatant'?"
First, it is unlikely to prove anything to a dumbshit like you, since you put your ideology (however fucked up it is) above facts. Second, if someone is picked up on the battlefield, like Khadr was, it's pretty much a given that he is an "enemy combatant".
"Yes, please keep screaming obscenities at me and avoiding the main crux of the issue."
Doesn't the fact that you seem to either ignore or not understand the "crux of the issue" proves that you are a dumbfuck?
"You think that a person or a state should have the power and authority to arbitrarily imprison someone without proving a case in an open and free court."
It doesn't matter what I think when international law is pretty clear on the subject. A person who is involved in an armed conflict could be detained until cessation of hostilities by opposing side. The fact that Khadr was involved in armed conflict with NATO (US) troops is not disputed by anyone. Well, maybe there are a few dumbfucks like you who dispute it, but nobody with at least half a brain does.
"You are willing to give up your liberty for some illusion of security from 'Islamofascist' huddled in caves on the other side of the world."
No, but I'd be happy to give up yours.
"My freedom is at greater risk from authoritarian actions of those who pretend to 'protect' me without my permission from people who pose no danger to me."
Then why don't you get the fuck out of here and go somewhere where people don't do that? You'll be happier and you won't be missed. sounds like a win-win to me.
"My freedom is in greater danger from 'Red state fascists' and bed-wetting Conservatives"
When you say "fascists", don't you mean National SOCIALIST WORKERS Party? The ultra-left dumbfucks who are even dumber than you are? (If that's possible) Doesn't that place "bed-wetting Conservatives" farther on the political spectrum from fascists than "bed-wetting Liberals"?
"How does believing in that make me a 'dumbshit' or have a broken moral compass?"
Believing in the need to prove an undisputed (even by Khadr) fact makes you a dumbshit. Badmouthing people without any proof, makes you laking a moral compass.
"Clearly you don't like"
I like it just fine. It's the dumbfucks' interpretation of it I'm not that crazy about.
"I'm sure though if you keep call me a dumbfuck, or stupid, enough times you'll look really good."
You shouldn't be insulted by a 'dumbfuck' label when it accurately describes you. You don't get insulted when someone calls you a Liberal, do you? And before you start bitching that this last statement is proof of us being a Neocon front, you might want to visit our site which makes our position pretty clear; Conservative dumbfucks are just as common as the Liberal ones.
A terrorist or an enemy combatant DOES NOT have the same rights as a law-abiding citizen.
Terrorists are a special case but enemy combatants (they're not the same thing) absolutely do have the same human rights as law-abiding citizens. What they don't have is an identical legal situation. Not to put too fine a point on it, but "human rights" are not synonymous with mere legal permissions, and it's best not to confuse the two.
Consequently, an enemy combatant has the right to liberty, but permission to exercise that right is denied by force: by law and, if required, by military or police actions. That the right to liberty remains is proved by the usual expectation that after the war, legitimate enemy combatants will be returned home, having been held, yes, but in appropriately humane conditions.
So, according to you, incarceration of every single inmate violates the Declaration of Independence?
I wouldn't presume to speak for Mike but my bet is that he intended to note only (but consitently with what I just wrote) that liberty is a recognized human right, and that human beings should only be confined in the clearest and most rigourously defined appropriate circumstances.
It doesn't matter what I think when international law is pretty clear on the subject.
It still matters what you think.
When you say "fascists", don't you mean National SOCIALIST WORKERS Party? The ultra-left...
I know the usual application of the terms "right" and " confuse the issue, but I still think if you check your history, you'll find that the German Worker's National Socialist party was clearly--even back to it's philosophic origins in Bismark and others--was a reaction to the leftist collectivism of, for example, the Soviets, and was instead an instrument of clearly right-wing and quite conservative collectivism; in other words, arguably socialist, yes--but not leftist.
The Nazis took the name of "Socialist Workers" to gain credibility with other already existing worker-activists, but also to co-opt socialism itself and workers parties in particular.
Well said Ron. It seems MAS is more interested in hurling insults at me than actually debating the points raised.
It seems to me that when authoritarians want to impose their will on others, one of the first things they do is get rid of due process, erode the idea of 'human rights' and then try to arbitrarily decide who gets liberty and who doesn't.
I am shocked, however. In 29 comments, MAS never got around to calling me a 'dhimmi'.
Mere oversight I'm sure.
"enemy combatants ... absolutely do have the same human rights as law-abiding citizens"
That is a very interesting observation, considering that enemy combatants could be detained legally and law-abiding citizens cannot.
"an enemy combatant has the right to liberty, but permission to exercise that right is denied by force ... by law"
By this definition, some of the enemy combatant's rights could be legally violated, therefore they do not exist.
"liberty is a recognized human right"
Yes, but the enemy combatant loses it and a law-abiding citizen does not. An enemy combatant does not necessarily fall into a 'terrorist' category, but he definitely does not fall into a 'law-abiding citizen' category.
"It still matters what you think."
Maybe to me and a few others, but not in general.
"I still think if you check your history"
That wouldn't be a bad idea. Mussolini, the original fascist was a commie. Then he organized a splinter group - fascists. Hitler adopted the same ideology and added an element of racism (Aryan supremacy). In reality communists and fascists have more in common than Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.
"was instead an instrument of clearly right-wing and quite conservative collectivism"
That's an oxymoron. Collectivism (increased government power) is a Leftist attribute. Increased power of the individual is the Rightist attribute.
"arguably socialist"?
That's like saying that CPSU was arguably communist.
"arguably socialist, yes--but not leftist."
It's like saying that ANSWER is arguably communist, but not Leftist.
"The Nazis took the name of "Socialist Workers" to gain credibility"
So did the commies in the Soviet Union. It didn't make them any less commies.
"It seems MAS is more interested in hurling insults at me than actually debating the points raised."
The points? We answered every one of your pathetic attempts to make a point. And when every one of your half-baked arguments is destroyed, you start bitching about insults, which, in fact, are accurate descriptions.
"when authoritarians want to impose their will on others"
We already know when someone else has a point of view, it is authoritarianism. When you have a point of view, it's the fight for human rights and everything good under the sun.
"MAS never got around to calling me a 'dhimmi'."
You displayed plenty of stupidity, but what does that have to do with you being a Dhimmi? Do you even know what Dhimmitude is?
That's an oxymoron. Collectivism (increased government power) is a Leftist attribute. Increased power of the individual is the Rightist attribute.
Depends on which matrix you use. If you use the standard right/left one-line "matrix" it's sorta true, as long as you're speaking on strictly economic lines, but once you factor in personal moral freedom, that traditional one line matrix goes all to heck. Truthfully, economic freedom and personal moral freedom are corollaries, but neither the traditional left or the traditional right have a good handle on that concept. Mises did, as did many of the Classical liberals, though.
In reality communists and fascists have more in common than Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.
Yep.
More later.
"as long as you're speaking on strictly economic lines"
Not true. This applies to politics just as much as it does to economics. Anarchy is the ultimate right; totalitarianism is an ultimate Left in either one.
"Truthfully, economic freedom and personal moral freedom are corollaries, but neither the traditional left or the traditional right have a good handle on that concept."
Exactly. That's why many people who accept either Right or Left label become demagogues unwilling to see the positive on the other side. To them you're are either a pinko commie or a Right-wing nutjob. Morons like Mike are a prime example.
Not true. This applies to politics just as much as it does to economics. Anarchy is the ultimate right; totalitarianism is an ultimate Left in either one.
MAS< I have no reason not to accept your terms for this discussion since we'll both know what you mean, but "politics" applies to both the economic sphere and the personal moral sphere (it's not a separate entity of it's own; "politics" actually only describes methods of achieving any social objectives) and--although what you describe fits, for example, the Nolan chart, which almost arbitrarily places all anarchism on the right although in a different corner than fascism, there is a strong anarchist tradition of the left as well, and one predecessor of the Nolan chart even put anarchism decidedly on the left.
This article on Nolan Chart Variations further describes my point.
I'd even accept that it's possible to put all types of collectivism (left or right, economic or "personal moral") on one side of a single line, and all types of individualism/non-interventionism on the other--but which end would be left or right would be arbitrary, wouldn't it.
That's actually why I generally try not to use "socialism" or "left-wing" and the right-wing counterparts, and instead try to use phrases like "enforced collectivism" VS "individualism/personal autonomy" when discussing these types of issues as I find it avoids the exact confusion or differences of viewpoint you're noting. In the case of this discussion, then, perhaps that will explain the terminology I used in my previous post.
I still stand by my point that Nazism was totalitarian-collectivist-- as totalitarian-collectivist as Marxism, just with different methodology (different politics), but I think that was generally your point as well.
However, Mike's position, if I understand him, is that he and many others that you might term "leftist" are not even slightly authoritarian at all, generally choosing communitarian methods personally but not at all to the point of enforcing them on others.
"there is a strong anarchist tradition of the left as well"
No there isn't. The only reason it is associated with the Left is because anarchists often used to team up with commies to overthrow governments. That's where the similarity ends.
"but which end would be left or right would be arbitrary, wouldn't it."
Primary difference in Right v. Left is individual freedom v. benefit for the society. Everything else is secondary.
""enforced collectivism" VS "individualism/personal autonomy""
That makes sense, but the original issue was a label of "Red State Fascists" which is an oxymoron.
"Mike's position, if I understand him, is that he and many others that you might term "leftist" are not even slightly authoritarian at all, generally choosing communitarian methods personally but not at all to the point of enforcing them on others."
Apparently, you don't understand him. Doesn't the fact that he spreads lies about MASH prove that he attempts to force his views on others?
Morons like Mike are a prime example.
We've agreed to disagree there.
That is a very interesting observation, considering that enemy combatants could be detained legally and law-abiding citizens cannot.
The same can be said for proven Canadian or American criminals, but--again using my terms of reference--the ability to exercise a right is not the same as "having it" or "losing it". The right remains intact.
For example: People in totalitarian countries still have the right to liberty but not the permission, not the ability to exercise it. Clearly, the "right" and the "permission to exercise it" are not the same thing, and having the right denied is not the same as losing it. In fact, when it comes to enemy comabtants, everyone actually knows where the right is: it's "held in abeyance". It's not *gone*.
By this definition, some of the enemy combatant's rights could be legally violated, therefore they do not exist.
See above: did the right of liberty not exist in totalitarian countries, or was the right that still existed only forcefully denied?
the original issue was a label of "Red State Fascists" which is an oxymoron.
AMnMA: Not that I take his words as gospel, but a Misesian libertarian who is decidedly not "leftist" disagrees with you: The Reality of Red-State Fascism.
One quote from the article:
The doctrine of liberty contains elements corresponding with both contemporary left and right. This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary political shibboleths. [emphasis mine]
"the ability to exercise a right is not the same as "having it" or "losing it". The right remains intact."
Then you're not talking about rights, you're talking about privileges. An American/Canadian criminal has a right to a speedy trial. An enemy combatant does not.
"People in totalitarian countries still have the right to liberty"
No, they don't. Right to liberty is not as universal as it should be. People under totalitarian regimes DO NOT have right to liberty. If they did, it wouldn't be a totalitarian country.
"it's"held in abeyance". It's not *gone*."
OK, I could agree with that definition. But it doesn't change the fact that Khadr does not have the RIGHT to a trial. The trial, in his case, would be a privilege.
"a Misesian libertarian who is decidedly not "leftist" disagrees with you"
I never claimed that people on the Left have a monopoly on demagoguery.
Then you're not talking about rights, you're talking about privileges. An American/Canadian criminal has a right to a speedy trial.
I mean no disrespect at all, but judging by how you view rights as disappearing when permission for them is denied, in my view it's more you that sees rights as privileges (or, as I'd term it" permissions). My rights exist even when permission is denied.)
Khadr does not have the RIGHT to a trial. The trial, in his case, would be a privilege.
Maybe we're not that far apart here. No one has a "right" to something that must be provided by others; there is no "right to a job" or "right to adequate medical care" and so on. (Obviously, I'm no proponent of so-termed "positive rights"). I think a strong case can be made that Khadr should have a trial, better soon--but I said earlier I'm not convinced it needs to be Canadian. I actually have quite high regard for the Judge Advocate corps.
I never claimed that people on the Left have a monopoly on demagoguery.
I agree; I know you've made that clear before.
I'm not sure, though. who you're referring to here as a demagogue (I'm not taking umbrage, or thinking you were being offensive at all; I just don't understand the reference). I was just noting that the idea of "Red State Fascists" itself is not out-of-hand an oxymoron; it's a supportable case.
Doesn't the fact that he spreads lies about MASH prove that he attempts to force his views on others?
He might be wrong about your organization and you're arguing that he is, and he might be trying to convince others of his point of view, but that doesn't equate to trying to "force" anything on anyone.
"My rights exist even when permission is denied"
I think it is an illusion. For example, your right to free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. As soon as you out of the US jurisdiction and the Constitution no longer applies, you DO NOT have that right (if it's not guaranteed by some other law). Therefore, this right is not universal. Your right to free speech in China is not denied, it simply does not exist. Our rights, whether you like it or not, are created by laws. If those laws did not exist, neither would the rights. Expressions like "my god-given right" sounds great, but they have nothing to do with reality.
"I think a strong case can be made that Khadr should have a trial, better soon"
I have no problem when the issue is phrased that way. I disagree with that, but it's just a difference of opinions. But when someone claims that Khadr has a right to trial, it's just not true.
"I'm not sure, though. who you're referring to here as a demagogue"
The person who wrote the article. A statement "Red State Fascist" is nothing more than an exercise in demagoguery. And it's just as stupid as "Blue State Fascist". It does not imply that some people in Red states are fascists, it implies that all of them are. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe I'm a little bit more sensitive to this issue than others, having to deal with "all Muslims are terrorists" bullshit on daily basis.
AMnMA: When I wrote "My rights exist even when permission is denied", you replied:
I think it is an illusion. For example, your right to free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. As soon as you out of the US jurisdiction and the Constitution no longer applies, you DO NOT have that right (if it's not guaranteed by some other law).
I understand that's what you think. I agree that the purpose of the Constitution is to guranteee that right, but as Bastiat noted: "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
Perhaps it's just semantics, but I seriously think it's more than that: were I in a totalitarian state, I would not fight for rights I did not have--I'd fight for rights I had that were being denied.
I disagree with that, but it's just a difference of opinions. But when someone claims that Khadr has a right to trial, it's just not true.
Wow. A respectful disagreement on the Internet, and reality continues to exist very much as we are familiar with it. I hope it's catching.
The person who wrote the article. A statement "Red State Fascist" is nothing more than an exercise in demagoguery. And it's just as stupid as "Blue State Fascist". It does not imply that some people in Red states are fascists, it implies that all of them are. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe I'm a little bit more sensitive to this issue than others, having to deal with "all Muslims are terrorists" bullshit on daily basis.
I wouldn't call Rockwell a demagogue, and I think perhaps--as you recognize--you might be reading too much into it; I didn't gather from the article that Rockwell thinks everyone in a Red State is a fascist, and I'm very sure he would not see things that way, or hold that opinion. That doesn't mean, however, that the phenomenon he describes isn't happening to a great degree, and as he describes it; I think it is.
As for "'all Muslims are terrorists'":
I know that point of view exists, and it *is* tiresome, dangerous brutally simplistic and ignorant. A great problem is that such a belief makes people fight the wrong enemy. I'm sure the real terorists take great pleasure in that misunderstanding; it certainly serves their purposes.
Allow me also to note that, regardless of what you might understand as his failings, Mike is not of that opinion; for what it's worth, you have that much common ground with him.
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
Again, that's a very nice notion, but it's not rooted in reality.
"I'd fight for rights I had that were being denied."
Then how do you explain the fact that a billion+ Chinese do not fight for their 'right' of free speech? Are they all cowards?
"I'm sure the real terorists take great pleasure in that misunderstanding; it certainly serves their purposes."
You have no idea! American Muslim establishment spends hundreds of millions of Wahhabi dollars to perpetuate the notion that Ummah (Muslim community) is a monolith. That turns an average Westerner against ALL Muslims. That, in turn, gives credence to gihadis' claims that the West is fighting against Islam, which radicalized young Muslims.
"Mike is not of that opinion"
I never thought he was. However when he uses "Red State Fascist", I'm pretty sure he means every conservative. Which makes him just as dumb as people who think that all Muslims are terrorists.
AMnMA:
Then how do you explain the fact that a billion+ Chinese do not fight for their 'right' of free speech? Are they all cowards?
Cowards? Not at all. Perhaps it's a similar situation to when folks didn't think (didn't even consider that) bacteria existed; most didn't even look for them. I know as well that, for example, the European view--as contrasted with much of the North American view--views rights as "permission after the fact of law" (or religious permission), and I'd venture to say that the great differences between what followed the American and French or Soviet revolutions attests to that.
I'm pretty sure he means every conservative.
I'm sure you'd be wrong :-) and I have reason to say so.
That said, even though it's early where I am, I gotta crash...not feeling well this evening, but I appreciate your visit and I look forward to our next meeting.
G'nite.
Me: "I'm pretty sure he means every conservative."
You: "I'm sure you'd be wrong :-) and I have reason to say so."
Doesn't the fact that "Red state fascists" is immediately followed by "bed-wetting Conservatives" proves me right. Or do you think that he only meant bed-wetting Conservatives, not all Conservatives?
"Doesn't the fact that "Red state fascists" is immediately followed by "bed-wetting Conservatives" proves me right. Or do you think that he only meant bed-wetting Conservatives, not all Conservatives?"
My "Red State Fascist" statement was taken from Lew Rockwell and the other right-libertarians at Anti-War.com. They are hardly lefties and some are Old Right conservatives and paleo-onservatives.
As for the "bed-wetting Conservatives" I mean those who are seeming so scared of the incredibly remote possibility of 'x' happening, they are willing to abdicate their liberty or empower a government with unchecked authority to make them feel better. That is a specific type of predominantly social conservative or neo conservative. I get along quite well with what we call "Red Tories" - socially liberal, fiscally conservatives - Old Right and even paleo-cons.
My problem is with authoritarians who seem tho think that it is ok to misrepresent themselves and to misrepresent history in order to achieve their particular ends. Especially if its against the will of others. Think the Strausian "Big Lie" being ok. Believing that you know better than others and have the right (or privilege or permission or just the power) to manipulate people to act the way you want.
If that isn't you or your organization, then you really have nothing to worry about, do you?
I generally judge individuals on their own words and actions, as my opinion of you and your organization is based.
"If that isn't you or your organization, then you really have nothing to worry about, do you?"
Of course not. No organization should worry what people like you think unless the goal of organization is to please every moron out there. But, as usual, you've missed the point, which was that frothing at the mouth demagogues (much like you) are present on either side and they consider everyone else an enemy.
AMnMA:
frothing at the mouth demagogues (much like you) are present on either side and they consider everyone else an enemy.
The lovely thing about an equation is that, by definition, they equate.
If any factor in the equation is incorrect, the equation fails and one must begin to re-examine the premises.
Since I can absolutely attest that Mike doesn't even near consider everyone else an enemy (although I think the experience of all three of us is that such folks *do* exist, and on all sides, exactly as you described) then that leaves one variable to re-examine: Mike can't be a "frothing at the mouth demagogue".
I know you wrote "much like [Mike]", but still, I have a point. :-)
"Since I can absolutely attest that Mike doesn't even near consider everyone else an enemy"
The only reason why he would be spreading lies about MASH is because he considers us an enemy. That DOES make him "frothing at the mouth demagogue".
AMnMA: with all friendliness, you are not "everyone" nor "everyone else" :-)
I'll also add, since this, my blog, is not at all StageLeft (no insult to Stageleft intended, just that here is a different place), perhaps here would be a good place for either or both of you to make an attempt to respectfully work out your differences by airing some specifics and dealing with them.
You both have my cordial and sincere invitation.
One of my other favourite quotes:
"We didn't speak to each other. That's how everything falls apart, isn't it." Nick Heyward, commenting on Haircut 100’s breakup.
"with all friendliness, you are not "everyone" nor "everyone else" :-)"
No, but his attitude towards us is indicative of his mindset.
"You both have my cordial and sincere invitation."
I'd be happy to take back and apologize for everything I said about Mike if he apologizes for spreading lies about MASH. I also would be happy to answer any legitimate criticism about MASH, God knows we're not perfect.
(slight edit for grammar and understanding)
AMnMA:
I'm in the nice position of having no preconceived notions about you or your organization, AMnMA, and certainly right now I'm happy enough to take you at face value.
I wrote:
"with all friendliness, you are not "everyone" nor "everyone else" :-)"
You replied: No, but his attitude towards us is indicative of his mindset.
I'm sure that you sincerely believe so, and that your present understanding of Mike leaves you in that position.
I wrote: "You both have my cordial and sincere invitation."
You replied: I'd be happy to take back and apologize for everything I said about Mike if he apologizes for spreading lies about MASH. I also would be happy to answer any legitimate criticism about MASH, God knows we're not perfect.
Thank you.
AMnMH, it would help if you could accept one thing just on my vouching: please understand that--right or wrong about you and/or your organization--I know Mike is not lying. He believes what he is saying. I know accepting that may not be easy, but please let me explain.
As I noted earlier, people are more likely to be wrong with integrity than they are to be either neglectful or indifferent with integrity.
Mike may be misinformed and he may have accepted evidence which, although the best or most credible he has encountered, is incorrect or misguided. I don't know...
...but I have to assume that if a person I've found to be as intelligent, as benevolent and as sincere as Mike thinks the way he does, that there's a chance I'd feel the same way if had only the same information he's encountered.
So I'm really only asking two related things:
One, for your understanding that, if Mike is proved to be wrong, the apology you should receive is for being mistaken, not for lying.
And two, if offered, that you'd accept that apology graciously (and you've given me no reason to think that you wouldn't...I'm just sayin').
I'm interested to know. One way or the other, and you both--as you know--have my welcome to work it out here if you choose.
"I know Mike is not lying."
Assuming you are correct, he is still spreading lies without any proof.
"He believes what he is saying."
How smart does that make him?
"Mike may be misinformed and he may have accepted evidence which"
He bases his judgment on RUMORS about us, not evidence. And the only reason for that is because he disagrees with us. That's where integrity flies out the window.
"I'd feel the same way if had only the same information he's encountered."
Would you, really? If X has an opposing point of view with Y, and X tells you that Y is an asshole, would you really believe that?
"So I'm really asking you to acept only that apology you should receive, graciously, if offered and if he is proved to be wrong, is for being mistaken, not for lying."
Could I be wrong when I say he's lying? Absolutely. Is it a fact that he spreads lies about us? Absolutely. How about an apology for mistakenly spreading false rumors about us? I'll take that.
However, if I were to bet on this, I'd bet on him not admitting to the fact that he has no evidence whatsoever to back up his claims. Unless, of course, you consider rumor as evidence. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm usually right on these matters.
How smart does that make him?
I'm smart, and I've been misled in the past.
Could I be wrong when I say he's lying? Absolutely.
Thank you.
Is it a fact that he spreads lies about us? Absolutely. How about an apology for mistakenly spreading false rumors about us? I'll take that.
If that's the case when this plays out, that'd be fair, and I think Mike would say so.
"I'm smart, and I've been misled in the past."
Being misled does not make you stupid. Being unable to admit to your mistakes does.
Post a Comment