Letters to the Editor
cardshark
Published Letters: 146 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Yes, that's right
[Read the article: The neocons' next war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, it was a legally binding agreement but now it's a "memo of mutual understanding".
We agreed, in writing, to share intel. It's not the same strength as a treaty, but it was a contract. Even if you were to argue that an informal written agreement is not legally binding, it's still a good idea for us to be true to our word, isn't it?
If it were two people, there would be no question that it was a contract, but the fact that it was two states complicates matters. What does "legally binding" mean, exactly, in international law? Even if it were a treaty ratified by congress, it's only theoretically legally binding. International recourse for breach of contract is ill defined, and what constitutes a contract is ill defined as well.
I'm not backing away from my characterization. Any written agreement between two actors is a legal contract. International recourse is another matter entirely.
Uh okay...but the idea that it's near libelous to call someone a traitor or treasonus when they committed espionage is somewhat dubious.
Well, KStone, here in the United States, we have one and only one definition of treason. It comes from the constitution, which explicitly says that this definition is the only definition that applies. The only way to have another definition would be to amend the constitution.
So, without further ado:
Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Did Pollard adhere to our enemies, or levy war against us? No, he did not.
Is calling someone a traitor a very serious charge that should require strong evidence? Yes, it is.
Here's the Merriam Webster definition of libel:
a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means
So yeah. Libelous.
-
Be good to each other
[Read the article: The believer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Being good to one another is the only truly practical thing religion can teach. In your daily life, the simple phrase "Be good to each other" encompasses pretty much all you need to know in terms of relating to people, except that not everyone believes it. Everything else is spiritual and personal, and so forth, and hence unrelateable unless you've experienced it yourself.
Christians often say their beliefs are being insulted, and then immediately insult us non-Christians.
One common insult is that it is not possible to be moral without religion. That it is not possible for me to feel empathy, without these scriptures written thousands of years ago, that you believe in.
I don't know why I feel empathy, but I do. You can explain that as God, if you want, and it's up to you. It only offends me when someone implies that without their holy books, I'd be out a rapin' and a pillagin'. Because that is the necessary implication that follows from this logic.
It's also clear that some feel empathy more than others do, even when the others have been trained to be moral. Many of these people share the same faith and believe in the same god as Collins.
How else do you explain the poor man voting Republican, when historically, Democrats have done more for the poor? The only way is to lie to yourself. I've had discussions with people so devoutly Republican that they deny Roosevelt pulled us out of the great depression. Or they think their church's bake sale does more for the poor than FDR did.
No one with any empathy would vote to cut social security to the elderly, or to ensure that rapists get to carry their babies in whatever woman they feel like impregnating, or to throw the financial burden onto the poor and their children and future grandchildren. Yet many people vote for people who pledge to do just those such things.
In this country, more often than not, religion is to blame. The Republican party is aligned very closely with an extreme sort of Christianity, that even most Christians do not agree with.
Empathy is the only solution. Many of you religious folk have written that the situation saddens you. What saddens me is that 90% of my country calls itself Christian, yet can't quite get the "Love thy neighbor as thyself" part of it. Meeting someone empathetic and moral is a rare event. And you religious folk don't have a monopoly on them.
The Beatles are my prophets. "All you need is love."
Yeah, okay, Eastern Dao Lama Yin Yang, or whatever, but still.