Letters to the Editor
Elephantman
Published Letters: 1116 Editor's Choice: 15
-
Salon readers -- a laugh with every posting...
[Read the article: Where there's smoke]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, Padilla was never "shot"...
No, Padilla was never shipped in a "metal coffin"...
No, Padilla was never sent to Gitmo (he was in the Consolidated Brig on a Navy base in Charleston, SC)...
So, other than blowing just about all of the basic facts, you all are doing real well with this one, aren'tcha...
Most laughably, you've all fallen into the trap that because Padilla was said to have been suspected of involvement with a 'dirty bomb' plot, but not tried on that charge after being held for military interrogation, he must have been innocent of that charge; after all, that's what happens on "Matlock", right?
Nonsense. I presume that Padilla, a/k/a al Muhajir, was not charged because the methods of investigation, or the collateral sources, would not be accepted under normal federal criminal court rules. Or that intelligence methods and sources would be dangerously exposed. No surprises there. Of course, when the soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division shoot someone in Fallujah, that doesn't exactly comply with normal federal criminal court rules either. We are talking about military operations.
If you don't think that the war on terror is a military operation, just tell me more about it after a real dirty bomb is exploded in a place like Chicago, or Los Angeles, or Washington. Consider; will it then be acceptable to say, "Let's have the FBI investigate this and bring the perpetrators to justice! Right after we assign them counsel and read them their rights! Assuming, of course that they weren't suicide plotters who already died in the attack(s)." Will that response be acceptable to anyone?
As Justice Jackson (among many others) have instructed us, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact
-
Jeff -
[Read the article: Where there's smoke]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's the difference between Tim McVeigh and the current War on Terror.
Tim McVeigh was not supported by another nation, with a vast network of institutional support.
The investigation of McVeigh & Co. was confined to American soil, where law enforcement can safely and effectively operate. Investigation, service of subpoenas, warrants, law enforcement interviews, etc.
There are not legions of other McVeighs out there, with more or less state-level support, threatening to blow up more federal buildings to avenge the Waco fiasco. (Thanks, Janet Reno.)
None of these things are comparable to the martial-law situations that prevail in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the state-sponsored terrorism being currently and actively practiced by Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, the Sudan, etc.
I think that sums it all up pretty well.
-
Wow! What got into the Salonistas' water supply with this one?
[Read the article: USA! USA! USA!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush hate-speech is of coure the coin of the realm at Salon... But this kind of weird, sociopathic, Nazi-fixation stuff makes me want to run to the nearest sociologist.
Isn't Salon supposed the be the sort of respected, mainstream leftwing site? Is there some even worse hate-speech on Firedoglake, DailyKos and DemocraticUnderground that I haven't seen? Don't you people have ivy league shrinks to help you through these issues?
Y'all are really worried about your collective and individual rights to 'dissent'? When there are a flock of websites for you to gather and basically urge the violent overthrow of the Bush Presidency! Any arrests stemming from that? You've got your own national, taxpayer-supported radio network (NPR). You've got at least two intrnational television networks, CNN and MSNBC, and a national newspaper, the New York Times, as house organs of your political party.
Just try that in Venezuela, or North Korea or Zimbabwe and see what happens. Try it in Russia, Syria or Iran, for that matter.
It never ceases to amaze me how strong America can remain -- economically, militarily, morally -- with the drag imposed on it by the likes of the Salonistas.
-
Two bits of free advice from your friendly neighborhood Elephantman
[Read the article: Hey, Dems: Run against Bush -- and toughen up -- or lose in '08]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, read the review of Drew Westen's book, written by David Brooks in the NYT Book Review. One quote; "...it's rare that one comes across a book that so avidly flatters the prejudices of its partisan readers."
Second, after you finish laughing at Drew Westen, by all means do what you all say you want to. Get tough. Become street fightin' men. Take to the streets at the next Democrat Convention. Burn some cop cars and throw some firebombs until they realize that you are serious about demanding a true progressive candidate. Get McGovern to deliver a speech just so that the message isn't lost. Skip Hillary Clinton; she's a closet hawk. Get yourselves a real progressive candidate. I'm thinking of a Gore-Obama ticket.
Please don't disappoint me, Democrats...
-
What a Yawner!
[Read the article: The Democrats' responsibility in the wake of Gonzales' resignation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am about as exorcised about Gonzalez leaving as I was about Harreit Miers' SCOTUS nomination being withdrawn. Which is to say, "Yesssss!"
My complaint with Gonzalez was that he didn't get right back in the Dems' faces and defend the independence of the Executive and the DoJ to pick and choose its AG's. I wanted much more combativeness from Gonzalez, not less.
I predict that Gonzalez's departute will represent the same kind of resounding success for Democrat partisans that Samuel Alito's appointment (in place of Miers) to the Supreme court was. How'd that one work out? Pretty effing great, in my opinion.
And yeah, I'd think that in this climate, Senator LeahySchumerKennedyDurbinClinton will oppose any movement conservative as AG. Which will make a recess appointment much more likely, if not inevitable. Yawn.
I'd like to say to those Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee: You're Number One with me. Can you see which finger I have raised in your honor?