Clinton! Clinton! gahhhhhsfhlsdabvkk

I stopped reading the NY Times editorial when I glanced at the footnote and saw that the writer is a US Air Force JAG attorney. I recall many Army and Navy attorneys speaking out against various aspects of prisoner interrogation and the military tribunals but I can recall no Air Force attorney doing the same. From my own experience with the services, this would not surprise me. After several years of dealing with the USAF, let's just say that they are a breed apart and I have definite prejudices against them for their near uniform thinking in the manner of the author of the NYT editorial. Great pilots, not great strategic or human rights thinkers.

Perhaps I missed it, but where is the notice of disclaimer that active military append to their signatures? The one which states that their views are their own, and that they do not speak for the USAF or the DOD.

Is he indeed speaking for those two entities?

This is an important distinction - policy of DOD/USAF, versus the rantings of an AF lawyer who may rely on this particular duty assignment for career advancement.

I know... I know... my bad. It's just that sometimes that little boy in me comes out and I just can't help it. The one who wants to poke the squirrel carcass one last time just to see if there's any maggots still left inside. I'll do my best to refrain from now on.

ps--But shooter's post really was remarkable, even for him.

LWM:

...was a progressive and leftist. Do they bother to tell you that at the "Randolph Bourne Institute"

Of course not. It would detract from the magic that is the crap that Hekyll and Jekyll, the magpies of politics, stole from everyone else who ever had an original idea that Hekyll and Jekyll could never come up with on their own, unless you count "Taxation is Theft!" - but even that was stolen from "Property is Theft!"

I am having trouble understanding this one. I know LWM loves a dust-up that interferes with GG's comment area, but this is beyond my ability to decipher. It is from near the end of the GG post-before-last comment thread.

The Randolph Bourne Institute: http://randolphbourne.org/

... is the umbrella organization for antiwar.com and it says " ...all RBI projects attempt to provide a forum where the entire political spectrum – libertarian, left, right, centrist – can join together on the vital issue of opposing war. ...". Is this not enough for LWM to accept?

Is he trying to claim that antiwar.com is "evil" in some way? It is my home on the net, if I have one, --- does that alone make them horrors?

Bourne:

Government is obviously composed of common and unsanctified men, and is thus a legitimate object of criticism and even contempt. If your own party is in power, things may be assumed to be moving safely enough; but if the opposition is in, then clearly all safety and honor have fled the State. Yet you do not put it to yourself in quite that way. What you think is only that there are rascals to be turned out of a very practical machinery of offices and functions which you take for granted.

Randolf Bourne was a liberal in 1900, but that is what we call libertarians today. (or classic liberals, if you prefer)

Anyone have a clue what LWM is going on about?

"I took liberties and Blake will have to forgive me if I butchered and weakened his original thought."

From my reading of Blake over the years, bebop-o, my guess is he would say there's nothing to forgive for you did not transgress, and my further guess is that he would have seen in you a fellow soul luminous and wonderful (in both senses of that word), and only encouraged you.

In the meantime, the shooter242 and tiberius continue to run the "But! But! But, they did it, too!" defense.

For the next part of the post, I will play the part of their mother: "If your country jumped off a cliff, would you do it, too?"

No need for those two to respond. They already answered in previous posts.

No kings,

Robert

In other words you don't believe bin Laden should be brought to justice. Nice. Well, now we know where you stand.

LOL. How deliciously crude. Now we know where YOU would like me to stand, reality be damned... like say, an actual quote.

You speak for me. And eloquently. Not just about the troll-feeding, but also about the effect of the past six years, except that for me it dates from 1998. Would that more people had read the much-missed Molly Ivins in 2000.

Orbitboy:

If you don't return the lobs, however many balls there are, eventually that particular game stops. No one is going to keep on serving if they can't get a response. By responding, you are doing exactly what they want. Sort of like GWB and you-know-who. Just to employ a bit of hyperbole. ;~)

You really can't remember what you wrote just a post or two before? You're really demanding precise words from others when you make up crap out of whole cloth and attribute them to others?

Fine, since you have short term memory loss, here's the exact words.

Orbitboy: Don't you think the mastermind of 9/11 should be caught and punished?

Shooter242: he isn't a priority at the moment

There's your "actual quote". Orbitboy's rephrasing is accurate given the full exchange. You don't think Bin Laden should be brought to justic. I have no idea why you think he'd be a higher priority if he physically went to Iraq. You do know he wasn't actually on the planes on September 11th, right?

Mr. Morris may really believe that holding people indefinitely without charges and when and if they are charged in a cooked up tribunal system, allowing secret hearsay evidence to be used against them, with no right of counsel and no right to confront their accuser and the evidence against them constitutes "robust safeguards," but I submit that the founders would disagree vehemently. There is a word for these kind of "safeguards".... star chamber. Even if the conditions are "humane," the fact remains that this institution is a travesty and a shame on all Americans. Which is why notorious lefties like Colin Powell have called for it to be shut down, not tomorrow, but "this afternoon."