tvashtarkatena

I gotta git me one a them thar TVs.

I have a GMHR certificate.

Is that PJ O'Rourke?

Hey dumbshit, they already do. Again: Aside from apparently being Seattle's number one ACLU groupie, what are your qualifications to endlessly pontificate and cite constitutional law here or anywhere with the authority you try so pathetically to project? Our future enemies already do? Kewl, myan.

I've seen Oberman a total of once, so I'm not very familiar with his opinions. Sorry to dissappoint. As for the 'dying American empire' posts, certainly you can dredge up one out of your extensive libtard database to support your assertion, cuz I certainly have no idea what you're refering to.... BTW, it's true that I don't believe that countries should have empires. Unpatriotic, I know, but I gotta be me.

You'll live. Besides, it gives you something to talk about.

Don't sell yourself short, Gene. You still got it goin on.

Oh, and I wasn't aware that any qualifications were necessary for spraying, other than having a couple of reasonably functioning fingers.

Are you kidding? Clinton already tried what you propose--and this was the result: The CLinton administration was actually very successful at arresting, prosecuting, and convicting terrorists, lawfully and Constitutionally, from McVeigh to Yousef. Let's not forget that, against Clintonite recommendations, the Bush administration placed terrorists threats on the bottom of its priorities, and ignored clear warnings about Al Qaeda specifically. And, of course, that 911 happened a year into Bush's watch.

BTW, you do take some purdy pictures. The pictures are already there. My camera takes them. I'm just the transport.

How does your seven years downrange relate to the story of saving a 5 year old girl again Mike? Is it really all about you and your experience? No one you know has mowed anyone down, but can you deny that thousands of civilians have been killed in these conflicts, some by indescriminate targeting? Because you personally weren't involved, it's never happened? Come on. Just going by your postings. You've often advocated a kill them all approach (release the Gitmo detainees so you can kill them, remember that one?) on this forum. You've also been a staunch advocate for torturing detainees, 'taking the gloves off', and all that. I believe that we should treat our enemies with our core values of fairness and freedom. Probably cause, due process, a fair trial. You know the drill. That, to me, is the true test of a society's convictions. So far, we're failing it. I realize that you probably post that shit for shock value, but, nonetheless, you can hardly claim being affronted by my story of saving a 5 year old girl, can you? If you actually behave similarly in the field, what is it about that story that still pisses you off? Furthermore, my advocacy for upholding the rule of law, part of which would entail prosecuting those Americans who have broken it, is not the same thing as denigrated the service of those in the field, or aiding the enemy, as you so often suggest. Of course you obey orders and regulations by definition. It's the military. If you don't, you're gone.

I was wondering when you'd show up with your obligatory pot shot. Nothing relevant to the topic at hand, of course. There never is.

I'll recount one more story to illustrate a different approach then trying to kill person in the world who disagrees with us; a technical impossibility anyway. This week I had a talk with my friend John, who spent in year in Ramadi in 06-07 as part of a combat engineering batallion. They were under constant mordar fire from across the river. What turned that tide was not levelling those neighborhoods or mowing down everyone in sight. It was a 5 year old girl who'd been injured in an IED blast. The marines medevaced her to a field hospital, patched her up, and delivered her back to her village (with great fanfare) six weeks later. The five villages where most of the mortar fire had originated turned staunchly pro-America on that day. THe mortar attacks ended, because locals began to report mortar team activity. Just on illustration of the power of love over hate in resolving a seemingly intractable conflct.

There is no current system any longer. Military commissions have been haulted, Gitmo has been ordered shut down. My alternative to the current system is the current system; the criminal justice system. It already exists, and, unlike the military commission clusterfuck, actually has a proven history of putting bad guys behind bars without destroying our American definition of liberty. As for your 'terrorist dinner guest' idea; Mr. Ali, Robinson's defendent, is reportedly intelligent, funny, worldy, personable, well loved by his family, and fluent in english. I'd probably enjoy his company, but then again, I enjoy most people's company. I'd probably enjoy yours. He's considered a war hero by his side. I suppose what he is depends on which side you're on. We bomb civilians over there; they consider us terrorists. The crew of the Enola Gay killed 100,000 civilians with the most terrible weapon ever invented. We consider them war heroes. It's not really a white hat/black hat world, is it? One thing Mr. Ali has asserted about America is that we don't walk the talk regarding our proported belief in the principles of freedom. Regrettably, he's right on that score. Hopefully, that will change.

BTW, I caught some UF on the big screen at the local watering hole the other night. A Braxilian guy versus a Chinese guy. The Brazilian wrapped himself around his opponent like a constrictor and slowly proceeding to drain the life out of him. Kind of cross between love making and reptilian predation. Primal, horrifying, graceful, and fascinating, all at the same time. There were two more matches. The variety of fighting styles was amazing.

No response; too weird. I"m still waiting for a reason why the criminal justice sytem, with it's proven track record of trying, convicting, and punishing terrorists wherever they are captured, and which requires no eviceration of our basic values, isn't up to the task. I'm not holding my breath, because there isn't one.

It's interesting that you speak for liberals and soldiers. You've never been either one. As for soldiers: Jeffery Robinson, the Gitmo defense attorney I heard speak yesterday, told this story. When he first got to Gitmo, he went to meet with the military defense team, a group of officers who had been assigned to defend five of the detainees currently on trial there. All but one was under 40. He expected that they'd 'mail in' their defense. He couldn't have been more wrong. According to Robinson, they turned out to be some of the smartest, most dedicated, and hardworking defense team he'd ever worked with in 28 years of criminal defense practice. They were, to a man, ashamed and appalled at the way our government had treated the defendants, and how it had attempted, in every way possible, to rig the trials in prosecution's favor. They knew that what we do to our prisoners sends the green light around the world to all of our current and future enemies to do the same to our captured soldiers.

Two tactics you might try: Accepting things you can't change. More love.

The message of the previous post is that we need to reduce our behavior to the lowest common denominator to mimmick that of some of the cruelest people on the planet. Personally, I think Americans should strive to be stronger than that.

Right on cue. No policy argument to be seen, just 'you're a dumbshit' repeated over and over, as predictable as sunrise. Good night.

There are those who advocate torture and the elimination of our most cherished American values, the core freedoms that are our true strength, such as habeas corpus. When asked why, all they can seem to do is shout down the questioner. They denigrate our criminal justice system, be many measures the finest in the world (that's not to say perfect), and one of our nation's greatest achievements. "What, you gonna read a terrorist their Miranda rights?" Um...yes. We read Ramsey Yousef his Miranda rights when we arrested him for the 1st WTS bombing. We tried and convicted him under our criminal justice system. He's now in a supermax prison in CO. Contrast that with the Gitmo detainees, who now sit in legal limbo because of the questionable Constitutionality of the kangaroo court the is the military commissions system, and whose prosecution cases have been seriously jeopardized because we tortured them. Such examples piss certain folks off, because they simply have no counter arguments for them. Plenty of implied threats, insults, snuff flicks, standard hippy/pussy/libtard comments, but no realistic policy argument. I listened to a talk given by a defense attorney for one of the Gitmo detainees today. The government has obstructed his ability to deliver a fair trial for his client using every means at their disposal. For example, everthing about the case is top secret. He could go even to prison for discussing any aspect of the case with his co-counsel, unless he does it in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). There's a SCIF in Seattle used by federal prosecutors. Could these two Seattle based attorneys use it? Nope. They must discuss the case in one of only two allowed facilities: one in VA, one at Gitmo. His attorney/client notes are immediately confiscated after every interview, sealed, and placed in a SCIF; he has not access to them for building a proper case. It takes a week of travel to spend one day at Gitmo with his client. Under the military commission system, the defendent does not have access to the evidence against him. Why? It's top secret. He's a Gitmo detainee: who the hell is he going to tell? Hearsay and evidence gained through torture is admissable. And on and on.... These are the most fundamental aspects of our rule of law and Constitution. This stuff is what we fought a war of independence for. And we want to give them up cuz we got a little scared? We've proven we can successfully try and punish terrorists many times in the past. We have all the legal and Constitutional means to arrest them anywhere in the world and try them. So, why must be give up our most valued freedoms and values in this manner? This isn't about the bad guys. It's about us, and if we are who we profess to be. Right now, we're not. We're liars, and the world is our audience. We say we stand for the rule of law, for human rights, for our Constitution, but, when the chips are down, we run from our professed convictions like weaklings. It's a choice, and it doesn't need to be that way.

THere's gonna be some big ass avis over the next few days.

Seems to be a bi-monthly occurance. Some people don't agree with my views on human rights and the importance of our Constitution, so they react personally with anger. That's their issue, not mine.

And no, my posts are not directed at you, so stow the narcissism, if that's even possible. And no, as I stated long ago, I don't read your PMs, so send all you want. It's your time to waste.

Watching, absorbing, spreading, and celebrating human suffering is clearly your thing. Like any bully, you're weak.