I write the United States Bridge Federation

I read with interest the New York Times story detailing potential sanctions against the women who held up the sign at the awards ceremony in China. I must say that I found this quote contained in the story particularly disturbing. “While I believe in the right to free speech, to me that doesn’t give anyone the right to criticize one’s leader at a foreign venue in a totally nonpolitical event,”

The reason this sounds sour to my ear is simply this:

If you can’t criticize your leader then why bother having free speech in the first place.

The whole point of the American experiment is the idea that we are all created equal and share in the responsibility of governing the country. If we can’t be free to criticize our leaders, then how can we possibly expect our leaders to represent our interests? I realize that yours is not a political organization and that this is a potential source of embarrassment but I would suggest that you view it as an opportunity to express your pride in being an American and supporting the great American tradition of free speech enshrined in the 1st Amendment to our constitution.

Respectfully,

I write to AP:

Reid Threatens War Money By ANNE FLAHERTY

The story referred to in the subject line contains a sentence which is severely misleading although unfortunately quite common.

Similar legislation has routinely fallen short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.

The “procedural hurdles” referred to in the article is in fact the announcement by Republicans of their intent to filibuster the bill. The fact that the Democrats in the Senate never in fact require the Republicans to filibuster is unfortunate. The fact that the AP routinely obscures this fact in its reporting is unconscionable. A little honesty on the subject would go a long way toward educating the public on what actually goes on in the Senate.

Re: Glenn Greenwald

What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?

Glenn's post refers to the process of providing lip-service to opposing torture without having to actually address it. Well that happens to be the exact point of the exercise. Everybody wants to be "on record" as opposing waterboarding but to actually take the position that it was illegal when performed requires that the AG then prosecute those responsible. That it the one outcome that no one, Democrat OR Republican actually wants to see happen. The fact that our administration has engaged in unfortunate and/or incompetent behavior is something everyone can nod their heads in agreement over. The fact that they are an ongoing criminal enterprise on the other hand, needs to stay under wraps. If Scooter Libby proves anything its that no one is going to jail no mattter what!

Re: Ron Paul

The thing I find interesting about libertarians is they start with an immovable principle and then shoehorn all their particular views on individual issues into the mold thus defined. This is of course in contrast to most people (particularly politicians) who start with a laundry list of opinions on particular issues and then try to assemble them into a coherent whole (Hint: most people hold incoherent views.)

I find the popularity of Ron Paul refreshing if only because it suggests that even hardcore Conservatives are sick of what this country is becoming. I regard that as good news.

The best line I've read

Concerning progress in Iraq

To me, the issue is this: We keep talking about whether the glass if half full or half empty. But since the liquid in the glass is gasoline, the real question is, who's holding the match?

Turning Point For Iraq

This is notable too because (appearing on AmericaBlog) it helps dilute the slander that liberals don't desire success in Iraq.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul for Republicans represents having your cake and eating it too. Supporting him is the easiest way to repudiate BuschCo, endless aggressive war, torture, and warrantless wiretapping without having to hold your nose and vote for Universal health care and Gun control.

Keyboard Kommandos

I always thought The Poor Man's schtick was just sorta entertaining but when I encountered these guys actually worrying whether FreeRepublic was being taken down by Hacker Jihadi's I knew that truth was indeed stranger than fiction.

Orange text that actually guides people to what I am talking about so they can see for themselves!

I'd just like to take this opportunity

to wish everyone a happy and healthy Islamofascist-Under-My-Bed week.

Move along - nothing to see here

Into the memory hole

So the opinion, while interesting, is much less interesting because now we don't know how the FBI extracts false confessions from people. Looking at things from another angle, we don't know how the FBI gets suspected terrorists to tell the truth. Except that we do know this, because the opinion is still available from the How Appealing website.

Action Alert

Someone asked an easy question

asked for someone to provide an opposing explanation. To explain what is motivating the Bush administration.

Shortly after 9-11, the Bush administrration realized that they had been completely blindsided. They then proceeded to panic. They rounded up thousands of Arab Amerricans for the crime of being Arab-Americans and they implemented a clearly illegal wiretap scheme without considering the consequences. As the smoke cleared, and the feeling of panic subsided they realized two things. 1: that they were criminally liable for the behavior they had already engaged in and 2: that they had a rare opportunity to undo the damage to executive power that Nixon and Watergate had done.

Everything they have done since (including perhaps, starting a war of choice) has been in the service of covering their own culpability and reclaiming dictatorial powers for the President. The notion of providing immunity to the telecoms, fits right into the grand scheme with ease.

Stooping to their level

A number of people appear to be of the opinion that we should not stoop to the level of our opponents and should instead take the high road. I happen to agree. We should refrain from random killing. We should refrain from imprisoning people and subjecting them to sexual humiliation and waterboarding. We should refrain from gathering databases of our opponents purchasing habits and trying to correlate them with their wiretapped phone conversations. As long as we refrain from these activities, we are indeed taking the high road.

Refraining from calling the people who engage in these activities rude names however is not taking the high road. It's rolling over and playing dead

I think this story illustrates a larger point

From CNN/International

It is doubtful that foreign security contractors could be prosecuted under Iraqi law. A directive issued by U.S. occupation authorities in 2004 granted contractors, U.S. troops and many other foreign officials immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law.

Security contractors are also not subject to U.S. military law under which U.S. troops face prosecution for killing or abusing Iraqis.

I bring it up because I think it speaks to a larger issue, including the warrantless spying issue.

Put simply, when there are no constraints on behavior then humans do bad things almost as a matter of course. The contractors in Iraq are working without any enforcment of rules of engagement. It was inevitable that an event like the one documented in this story would eventually take place.

But the same thing is true in regards to the NSA and the data-mining eavesdropping programs. They may have been set up with the best of intentions, but without oversight or coherent rules, abuse is inevitable.

Re:Petraeus - Betray us

Generals are people too. To pretend that they are above criticism or ridicule is to take yet another baby step towards fascism. The whole theory that our nation was founded upon was that "all men are created equal", that there is no priveleged class and that one of the most potent tools protected by the first amendment is satire. The people who wish to take this away clearly fail to understand the nature of Freedom and I personally find that heartbreaking.

Just a thought

What compartment of the brain do the people who absolutely despise illegal immigrants store their understanding of what it is to be an American in Iraq?

Just curious.

Its time for my favorite quote re: Treason.

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

I only bring it up because, the same people who are most likely to make references to treason while referring to their fellow citizens are uncoincidentally the same people who have the least respect for the US Constitution and the Freedoms it guarantees.

Marketing Marketing Marketing.

All the time we were being told to wait for General Petraeus's report to Congress, it never occurred to me that we were waiting for the anniversary week of Sept. 11th.

It seems to me, that one of the reasons the Dems are cowering in the corner is they actually appreciate the power of brainwashing - uh I mean marketing. This year is the first where September 11th falls on the same weekday as the original tragedy. Is it a coincidence that this is the week they've chosen to roll out the "7 out of 10 Generals prefer the Surge over the next leading strategy" campaign?

"The surge is working"

The surge is working alright. It has very conveniently changed the subject about what the future in Iraq holds and bought at least one more FU for our soldiers.

Recall that during the election campaign we were endlessly presented with the choice between "staying the course" and "cutting and running". Within minutes of "cutting and running"'s victory in the election, "stay the course" immediately disappeared down the memory hole and "the Surge" was born.

I just can't believe that our entire foreign policy apparatus is being run by a marketing department but there you have it.

re: Iran

It is possible that much of what is going on is bluster and is intended for its diplomatic and political effect rather than signalling an actual imminent attack. But its worth pointing out at this time that our Constitution was specifically written to make this kind of posturing and threatening impossible. Not only was the power to make war specifically entrusted to the lower house so that such decisions would be made by those closest to the people but military appropriations were specifically limited to two years so that the executive could not feel that he had an army at his disposal to do with as he saw fit.

The founders understood human nature and were afraid of what would happen if these guidelines were not adhered to. It appears they were dead-on.

I can't let this slide.....

Dissecting Greenwald


Even though I am supposedly a member of the Very Serious People (VSP) Foreign Policy Community (FPC) I feel obliged to say that I don't agree with any of these sentiments (well except for the part about America being "inherently good.")

In case you can't tell, I have a REAL problem who anyone says that the US is inherently good. We may indeed be a force for good. We may indeed be a model for the world. But these qualities aren't "inherent". We have to work for them. And that we have to work for them suggests that we can fail. America's goodness is not inherent. Anyone who suggests that it is, is being morally lazy at the very least.