From the Declaration of Independence's list of indictments of George III, intended to prove to a "candid World" that dispicable monarch's intent of establishing "absolute Tyranny" over the colonies:

FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:

FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

...

FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offenses:

FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring province...so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:

Tyranny, like torture, is clearly two different things:

An obvious, morally repugnant and heinous offense against humanity and basic rights when we're the victims.

A "complex" matter "awaiting future judicial clarification" when we're the perps.

How do you like us now, "candid World"?

America isn't even close to being as bad as our enemies as much as you, and your fans, want it to be true.

That's why your little crusade will never gain traction.

Happy 4th of July if that even has meaning for people like you.

Happy 4th Glenn and Readers:

I'm curious about how the NYT/NPR justifies the line about no court determining that waterboarding is torture.

There was that Texas waterboarding case in the 80s, we prosecuted Japanese during WW2 and our own soldiers during Vietnam. Don't those qualify as 'court cases'? I haven't been able to access the actual opinions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xjPODksI08

Tracy Chapman is standing on a stage singing about talkin' about a revolution. Glenn Greenwald, and many people who comment on this blog, are writing about and commenting about and explaining scenarios about a 'revolution' or at least activism. What's the difference between Chapman's singing and what goes on here as far as activism and revolution goes?

And, Adnoto, what exciting revolutionary actions will you be telling us about that you plan to take part in today? Or are you just going to hang around and repeat your usual disdain for others who write and comment here but aren't doing whatever it is you think they should be doing...out there?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTyAZTvLfAM

I wonder if others find it odd that Obama campaigned as wanting all Americans to become active in their government and working for change, yet that is not how he governs. If he really wanted Americans to take an interest in their government, why then would his administration dump stories like their request for yet another delay in releasing the CIA Inspector's report into the weekend holiday news dump? They also have done the same with other items just as bad like their schemes to hold prisoners indefinitely at Gitmo and elsewhere. If you want Americans to be better informed so that they do take an interest in what their government is doing, why would you use a weekend news cycle to dump these stories into? In other words this kind of behavior in how they are using the media represents a government that wants to hide its "Bush-supporting" less popular policies and bad behavior from as much of the public as they can. This also explains the Obama Administration's horrible record on government transparency including fighting the release of FOIA requests in court and requesting another extension on releasing this CIA report, which is nothing more than an attempt to keep more torture reports out of OUR news.

And it may also manifest itself in Obama using his powers or getting Congress to weaken FOIA to prevent the release of documents that Americans should not only have a right to see but want to see. None of this represents the behavior of a government that is best served by informed citizenry. And by definition is designed to exclude more participation.

On a side note and I think this is very important: If Obama claimed that DADT actually weakened our security, which is the claim he made while meeting with various leaders of the Gay community at the White House, why then would he refuse to suspend this law using an Executive Order or force Congress to act to change this law immediately? Is Obama willing to allow a national security flaw to stay in place when he could act to fix this? And if this hadn't been an issue affecting gay people and our national security the GOP would have jumped all over this like flies on poop.

The internet is our panacea.

How is it that there really aren't mass protests going on? For even if the MSM wouldn't cover such protests, we would find news of them here, or Daily Kos, or Truthdig, etc. The fact is, nobody is seriously protesting, as people did during Vietnam. And I wonder why. Just the bank bailouts should have brought everyone to the streets.

[snip]

I think these things are likely, but it still doesn't explain the lack of willpower evinced by the liberal groups. It's all willy-nilly and haphazard. So I wonder if the internet isn't the bone thrown to us - hey, even Obama reads Glenn; there now, happy? OK, so shut up about your lack of voice. Maybe we are fooled by this very technology into thinking we are heard, and by participating in blog comments we are lulled into feeling that WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING.

This is difficult to articulate, and I am not a good writer in any case, but what I'm trying to say is that maybe we are letting ourselves be marginalized.

So where will we go when the people in charge just shut down portions of the internet like they do in China? Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Chris Hedges, and Dennis Kucinich's Congressional webpage would be the first to go. It wouldn't serve for them to do that, and I don't believe that it would actually ever happen. No need - as long as we are happy HERE we will never be found on the streets waving signs. -- teri49

Yeah.

Have you considered that the internets and the netroots (as it is today) are actually an impediment to real activism? I am more than willing to grant that it is a great system for information dissemination, recording and countering the out-and-out lies of the establishment and for raising money for candidates but, when it comes to direct action, it is my belief that it acts as a ineffectual substitute and actually inhibits activism which might actually accomplish something.

Instead of leaders we have bloggers, who are natural leaders though, for the most part, they do not and will not acknowledge that fact. They are in a position to be the modern day organizers for real, direct action but for various reasons, not the least of which is, in some cases, wanting to appear "serious" so as to gain credibility and leave open the possibility of becoming part of the establishment themselves, they choose not to assume that natural mantle. Their readers (followers) are content that they are doing all they can by writing letters, making phone calls and, recently, throwing money at the problem. They are content even though nothing of significance is has been accomplished through those tactics. Over and over they are disappointed by their "representatives" lack of responsiveness...disappointed at their lack of "will to do the right thing"and yet these internet activists continue to do bang their collective head against the wall.

To these bloggers and their followers nothing is ever serious enough that it calls for direct action and, from what I have seen, nothing ever will be. Not lying us into a preemptive war of aggression, not the systematic dismantling of the constitution, not the Patriot Act, not torture, not the rape of the treasury, etc. etc. and certainly not illegal domestic spying.

And so it goes... --adnoto

Permalink Tuesday, June 17, 2008 02:22 PM