Letters to the Editor
-
Not true, Mona --
. . . . It is properly illegal to organize a violent upheaval (e.g., revolution) that advocates putting people "up against the wall."
Not guilty: I'm a Democrat, therefore inherently disorganized. One could even say it's a lifestyle.
Such inherently does not involve due process or recourse to the judicial system currently in place.
Not true. One can have due process, including innocent unless and until proven otherwise, with execution being already stated as "the" outcome of conviction.
Also, there's Bushit due process:
"Foist we're gonna give you a fair trial, then we gonna hang ya. . . that looks like a good tree over yonder, there."
Or more succinctly:
Wanted dead (no trial necessary) -- or alive (if that's the oversight).
I think you're being pairanoids -- following yourself around and forgetting that it's yourself following you instead of someone else.
-
Both resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents --
"Read up on the Rape of Nanking. Then you won't feel so bad about the firebombing of Tokyo.
"-- L.W.M. Wednesday, May 21, 2008 05:47 PM"
Not only do two wrongs not make a right, but one can legitimately condemn both. In the latter instance there were military and industrial alternatives to knowingly bombing civilians.
-
Gee, Mona --
Look, there is simply no reason to invite trouble from, make it easier for, facilitate, skirt the edges of the law before & etc. re: those who would want to depict you, me, Glenn and those who oppose the current regime.
Are you saying those who, such as I, state the fact that torture is a war crime, that it can't be made legal, and efforts to make it legal are also illegal, should not be stated?
If so, why? Because they already don't obey the laws? Because they may continue to not obey the laws?
How does that change anything? One either allows them to continue to narrow, and narrow, and narrow the proper scope of our rights, and is silent about it; or one objects to their doing so out loud. I don't see that the former approach cures the situation.
-
bucky1 babbles again --
"The liberty haters usually love murder ..."
They do? Well let's look how you pillory everything but your own bias in that regard:
"It is an oddity (that I have trouble understanding) that those who hate, beyond description, people like Ron Paul or others who want a government as weak as a kitten (or vanishingly small as in some cases) seem to always defend war actions against civilians."
Gee, bucky1, regardless how it happened, doesn't it sorta strike you as odd that a weakness of gov't on 9/11 that allowed 9/11 to happen was the best way to prevent 9/11 happening?
Why is it you are so impervieous to history and reason?
And why do you persist in ignoring the fact that Ron Paul himself said that he agrees with virtually everything the John Birch Society stands for, the JBS is lunatic RIGHT-wing, and the Bushit criminal enterprise is RIGHT-wing, and yet your proposed solution to the evils of the RIGHT-wing is to move even further to the RIGHT and ever-deeper in into the lunatic fringe cesspool?
Do you simply not "get" it?
-
I for one am tired of the walk-on-eggshells apologists --
afraid that exposing traitors such as O'Hanlon -- who has betrayed everything our country claims to stand for -- might call the cops because his feelings are hurt by the truth --
Steven Rockford --
". . . . Back [in the 1960s], going to college in The Bay Area, I thought only the reactionaries were concerned about being “picked up” for subversive thoughts. I’ve read nothing here that even comes close to what Governor Reagan considered the “dirty revolutionary hippie language” that prompted him to send the National Guard into Berkeley.
This “Wall” discussion would have been considered trivial literary discussion at that time. Why has our open intellectual discourse been tempered by such an Orwellian level of paranoia?"
It can only be that the "radicals" of today -- in word -- don't have the backbone that we had then to stand for our convictions. We didn't bomb, or commit any other crimes -- some of us were all along pacifists; but we certainly didn't clam up and whine about paranoid figments by means of which we intimidated ourselves.
We knew we were probably being watched. We waved at the cameras, and continued our speaking out and broad-daylight active protests. (But don't tell anyone this: We actually engaged in candlelight vigils/protests at -- GASP! -- night!)
"Has the concept of free speech been lost forever in this country?"
The concept is alive and well -- it is a constant topic of discussion. The courage to exercise the right is lacking, based as noted essentially on self-intimidation.
-
Misguided free speech is one thing; knowing propaganda is another --
as the DOD records show, O'Hanlon was part of the pro-war "Military Analyst" propaganda machine, which was at minimum argouably illegal.
L.W.M. --
"You've got it!
Has the concept of free speech been lost forever in this country?
-- Steven Rockford
"Because what kind of people would we be if we put O'Hanlon up against the wall for what he said? As much as we might like to...
"You see the problem?"
What problem? It is not legal to incite riot. It is not legal to engage in speech which is the proximate cause of the death/s of others. It is not legal to yell theater in a crowded fire.
Again: O'Hanlon was willing participant in a DOD program to illegally propagandize against the American people. His continuing duplicity aside, what about that is legal and defensible?
I propose enforcing the laws against those who have violated them. That includes against thugs such as O'Hanlon for having illegally propagandized against his fellow citizens. That may not in itself rise to a capital offense; but there sure are a whole lot of humans dead as direct consequence.
Yet, instead of advocating enforcement of the laws, we have these quivering jellyfish biting their lip and whining because their own fantasies scare them.
On the other hand, if those fantasies are true, then "they" don't need an excuse to falsely allege a violation of law as excuse to "come get us".
-
Eyes Closed Before Marriage Needs Eyes Closed Afterward Too
O'Hanlon, like other Faux Warriors, can see himself described in the book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)."
The book's subtitle describes all, "Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions and Hurtful Acts"