So I woke up this morning and looked at the top news so far. What I found was that the Supreme Court is holding up the right of the government to withhold the names of detainees considered to be threats to our national security. I had meant to bring this stuff up earlier after I saw Ross Mayfield object to the Patriot Act II, but it was this latest news that really pissed me off. (By the way, check out the various comments and trackbacks on Ross’s blog, there is some good discussion there)
“It is better to let ten guilty men go free than one innocent man stay locked up”. Yes, it’s clich
on Jan 12th, 2004 at 2:00 pm
Why do you think the past is knowable? Who writes the history books? Which history do you believe? History is no more clear than the present, maybe even less so, since there’s plenty of time to manufacture lies to cover the “truth”.
on Jan 23rd, 2004 at 9:49 am
gotta admit, I quit reading after the dubya “drunk driver” low blow. he hasn’t had a drink for over a decade. he’s obviously changed. why not choose a fault with more substance (not to mention more relevance) than his DUI from like 20 years ago.
besides, I don’t imagine you’d have much problem with clinton or gore, though they were both “potheads”.
on Jan 23rd, 2004 at 10:45 am
That’s too bad AG — last time you commented here you had some very thoughtful things to say. If you’d kept reading I’m sure you would have had some more thoughtful things to say. Note that my next comment after the “drunk driver” is that I wouldn’t trust Gore or Clinton to make that call without telling me why — at least not after they had proven I could hold their trust.
And no, I don’t mean conspiracy theory level trust — I just mean, demonstrated their leadership abilities so I could have a high level of confidence in their actions. Anyway, thanks for reading — it’s unfortunate that I pissed you off and you weren’t able to focus on the issue.
on Feb 4th, 2004 at 9:39 pm
> Those defending Bush/Cheney’s War On Terror (or more specifically, the tactics such as the
> Patriot Act and this latest court ruling) will argue that it truly is in our national interest
> to not release those names. Really? Who told you that?
> Dick Cheney? George W. Bush?
> Why should I trust them?
Perhaps because they were elected to high office by a substantial number of Americans, and in the process, they were given considerable power.
> This is coming from a drunk driver … and a man who might have as much oil money clogging
> up his arteries as there is in his bank accounts. Are these people really looking
> out for my interests?
I find it interesting that a man who is quite skeptical of these two very accomplished men should find it so easy to make inflammatory and speculative comments (ie. Bush perhaps drove drunk 100 times prior to getting caught; Cheney is an evil oil baron). Is this not akin to believing your own code to be bug-free whilst decrying the mess in your co-worker’s CVS sandbox?
Why should I believe you that Cheney is an evil oil baron? that his motives are mainly to enrich his own pocketbook. I rather doubt you know anything about him at all? Had he wanted to maximize his own wealth, he wouldn’t have given up his 7-figure executive salary for $198,600 per year, would he?
Cheney’s money is in a blind trust. Except for deferred salary that was due and paid to him in 2001 and 2002, he has received no money from Halliburton.
As for Bush’s drunk driving, I’m with AG.
When you make speculative claims like this, you weaken your arguments.
> We continue to move in the direction of a police state with the main weapon used against us being fear. It’s a complete joke to try to say we’re actually interested in the freedom and rights of everyone. No, we’re interested in our vested interests <
Acting in our own national interest, eh? And that’s wrong because…??
Good things have happened and will continue to happen because we have conquered and occupied Iraq. No longer does Hussein oppress his own people, and no longer does he pay $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. I think most civilized people would consider these good things.
Had Clinton mistakenly suggested that Zimbabwe had a nuclear program and used that as a pretext to invade, no one on the left would have uttered a peep, even if the nuclear program were later found to be mythical. Neither would responsible people on the right, because a pre-emptive invasion would have kept the Hutus from slaughtering a million Tutsis. Everyone should recognize the overriding importance of such a noble outcome, even if not originally intended.
When I think of the horrors of torture, unjust imprisonment and starvation that are going on today in Cuba and North Korea, I wish that it were feasible to invade them. Our system of justice is incredibly more advanced than theirs, notwithstanding the so-called atrocities that concern you.
Also, there is evidence of bold dissent in both Iran and Syria, Iraq’s neighbors. Muammar Gaddafi has agreed to inspections, lest he be chased into a spider hold by a division of American troops.
These are not bad outcomes. These make us genuinely safer. I can’t agree that all preemptive action turns out bad. So far so good.
on Feb 5th, 2004 at 3:41 pm
I apologize for erroneously locating the Central African holocaust in Zimbabwe. It took place in Rwanda. I plead total ignorance. I could not point out either of them on a map of Africa were they not clearly labeled in English.
But the point still stands. Few responsible people would have criticized Clinton had he acted. But unfortunately he did not, despite desperate entreaties to do so. In fact, he personally blocked UN attempts to put a stop to the killing in 1998 and verbally justified his stance at the time.
Of course, Clinton being Clinton, he sings a different song now. He is all, “I’m so sorry” and “If we had only known”. He knew. He knew and did not have the courage and compassion that Bush has shown by liberating first the Afghani people and now the Iraqis.
You can read the late Michael Kelly’s account of it here:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/kelly011200.asp
It’s worth noting that, after taking out Saddam’s army, the mere threat of sending a couple of thousand allied troops to Liberia put would-be dictator Charles Taylor on the run.
on Feb 22nd, 2004 at 1:34 pm
Thenak you for focusing attention on the plight of these detainees.
At my blog, I have an update on the situation of Pakistani immigrant Ansar Mahmood, a pizza delivery man in Hudson, NY, who has been detained in Upstate New York for over two years despite being cleared of any terrorism-related activities. Despite attention from Michael Moore and Amnesty International to the LA Times and Washington Post, he remains held under threat of deportation.
For more details, please go to this URL:
http://hudson.typepad.com/line/2004/02/hinchey_joins_r.html
Or cllick my name…