Democrats & Liberals: Archives

As you know, it is the executive office’s responsibility to enforce laws. If you got a beef with transgressions of international/national law then take it up with Bush.

Correct. The problem is not Guantanomo, or Abu Ghraib.
Just like guns aren’t the problem.
Religion isn’t the problem.
Democrats aren’t the problem.
Republicans aren’t the problem.

Some people are the problem:
(1) Those that perpetrate torture and other crimes.
(2) Those that ignore, or order, or encourage crimes torture and other crimes.

We know it’s happening. Just ask SPC Sean Baker and about the missing video tape.
And, one of the negative impacts of this corruption will be the release of real terrorists, who will rejoin Al Qaeda, and recruit more terrorists.

There may possibly be a way to resolve such problems. But, first, we have to recognize that humans are not perfect. Too many (not all) are prone to corruption and crime when the opportunity arises. Transparency is usually lacking where corruption begins to take root, and is soon followed by no accountability, and no responsibility.
The solution may be to insert informants in all platoons, sqauds, units, etc., and their job is to blend in, and watch, and report illegal activities to a board (not just a few persons). And everyone, all soldiers, are informed that every unit has one or more troops whose job is report illegal activities. They could be privates or officers. No one can know who. This could be a dangerous job at times, when corruption is rampant. But transparency will discourage corruption and illegal behavior, and result in more accountability, responsibility, and a military that holds themselves to a higher standard.

Why do this? Because transparency is required. That is why they install surveillence cameras in stores, cashiers, ATMs, federal buildings, airports, banks, top secret zones, homes, etc. Because it provides a deterent to crime. It helps remove the opportunities to commit crimes.

It is necessary (unfortunately).

d.a.n.,

I agree with much of what you usually have to say. However, what you are suggesting here sounds a little too much like thought police and telescreens to suit me…

Since When do terrorists deserve due process. They don’t fight for a nation and they specifically target civilians. They don’t even fall under the genvea convention. They clearly don’t deserve a trial.

ok lets look at both sides

1st
“America believes in the rule of law - in this case, the Geneva Convention. America believes in due process - for everyone”

these are not american civilians so due process is out the window
these are not pow but terrorists so the Geneva Convention does not apply to them.
i agree it is wrong to tourture anyone as a rule, but sometimes(very few) it is nessacary.

(i dont like harming animials but if shocking a monkeys privates saves a human life, then all i have to say is the red ones the positive and the black one is negitive)

2nd from the other side.. ok lets close down both camps. what do we do with the people there?

we could send them all back to iraq, write them a summons and tell them to be in washington with your taxpayer paid lawyer in 6 mouths. and feel safe that he will be there!

someone tell the people on the republican blog that there is no way to post a response to the last thread

I noticed the same

tony

did they give up and change the subject yet again?

TheTraveler wrote: d.a.n., I agree with much of what you usually have to say. However, what you are suggesting here sounds a little too much like thought police and telescreens to suit me…

Yeah, it sounds like one of those sci-fi movies where big brother knows everything. There is always an aversion to these types of solutions involving surveillance and informants. However, necessity wins out ususally. There was supposed to be a video tape of SPC Sean Baker’s training mishap, but someone failed to tape it or hid and/or destroyed the video tape.

The other alternative is to somehow increase the likelihood that peers will voluntarily report such crimes. However, as in SPC Sean Baker’s instance, this isn’t happening. And there’s something rotten about it that goes pretty high up. So what’s to be done about it, and the future? If we do nothing, nothing will change. If we always only punish some after the fact, nothing will change much still. That’s and after-the-crime-deterrent. So, we need something that is a before-the-crime-deterrent.

Under Geneva Convention al quida members are not terrorists they are spies. However, the members of the taliban, might be POWs. All depends on if you accept the Taliban as the nation of Afganistan.

Since we are I am defining terms, African muslims who flock to iraq to drive suicide car bombs are not insurgents and they are not iraqi freedom fighters, they are terrorists, perhaps they are holy warriors, hell bent on killing everyone who is not a true muslim. Including jews, christians, atheists, hollywood scientologists, and the rest. JIHAD !

What I really don’t get is that if these detainees are bad people, they must be bad for some reason, i.e. they broke an American or International law. If so, charge them, try them and punish them. If you don’t have enough evidence to convict them, then let them go, and shame on you for screwing up the case against somebody dangerous. I think that everyone is entitled to their day in court, including serial killers. There is NO ONE INDIVIDUAL or group on this planet who has the right to decide that somebody should be detained in perpetuity without some sort of judicial process. If they can do it to these guys, they can do it to you.

Imagine it was the IRA committing terrorists acts against the US. Well, imagine that the supposed leader of this recent action has the last name O’Reilly. Turns out he’s the distant cousin of the no spin zone guy, and the two of them were actually standing at the bar at cousin Seamus’s wedding a few weeks ago. Well, Bill is an upstanding patriotic American, and has never met this distant cousin, and never talked to him at the bar. After the most recent terrorist action, Homeland Security picks up yours truly and secretly whisks him away to Gitmo. I think Bill deserves to know the charges and have his day in court. Under the current situation Bill is stuck there for 8-9 months screaming his head off, without legal representation.

t c,

yah I gave up

James,

actually they are not spies. Spies must have a nation to spy for. All the taleban was never recognized by the U.S. as a legitimate state. No geneva for these guys. I just wish President Bush would just come out and explain all of this. It would so easy.

I ment and the Taleban

Tony, you don’t get to assume someone is a terrorist without due process of the law. Why? Because there’s always the possibility that you have an innocent person on your hands (a point well made in GITMO).

Again, I notice most Republicans just assume everyone in GITMO was found with a bomb in their hands. The truth is, we’re not only buying detainees but according to international law we are kidnapping them.

The IRA is slightly different because they have a home base, but they still specifically target civilians in certain cases. Those terrorists would also not have a right to trial. Due process is protected by the U.S.A. If you are not a citizen your outa luck here. Geneva is for war criminals. Killing civilians is not war.

Tony:
Since When do terrorists deserve due process. They don’t fight for a nation and they specifically target civilians. They don’t even fall under the genvea convention. They clearly don’t deserve a trial.

How do we know they are terrorists? Just because you say so? If you are so sure that they are terrorists, why not put them through the legal system to prove to the rest of the world that you are correct? Once they have been proven to be terrorist, then we can punish them accordingly.

I�ll agree that these people do not fall under the Geneva Convention. And I�ll also agree that they are not American citizens so they are not afforded the protections set forth in the Constitution. However, they are still humans and we should treat them as such. Even though they might be terrorists, they are still children of God.

“You shall not hate any man, Egyptian or Edomite, as they all are the works of God” Deut. 23:7

“Not that revenge is evil, but that patience is more honorable” Psalms 7:5 (A. V. 4)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

And finally:
On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, “Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me.” Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, “Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me.” These will ask Him, “When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?” And Jesus will answer them, “Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!”

Tony,

If they are not uniformed members of a nation’s military - they are spies. There is no other classification other than noncombatant.

This is geneva convention

The detainees were found fighting us. None of them are completly innocent. You must have a place to sort them out. 200 people were sent home from Gitmo without any sort of torture. The guilty are not even being tortured(temperature change is hardly torture) I wouldn’t worry about the innocent.

I just read my geneva convention. Lets say they are spies. It says if they are not wearing there nations uniform they do not quality for POW status. There goes due process.

The detainees were found fighting us. None of them are completly innocent.

And how do you know that? Many of the detainees were not captured by the American military, but instead were given to the American military by an Afghan warlord. Perhaps they are guilty, but it’s far from clear that “they specifically target civilians”.

Here’s some background

terrorism

Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration, pose a grave collective danger, or seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power may only be punished by internment or imprisonment. (Convention IV, Art. 68)

I just read my geneva convention. Lets say they are spies. It says if they are not wearing there nations uniform they do not quality for POW status. There goes due process.

It also says Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Those tribunals haven’t happened. There comes back the requirement for due process.

Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration, pose a grave collective danger, or seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power may only be punished by internment or imprisonment. (Convention IV, Art. 68)

Do you know if this requirement was met?

Tony

If they are combatants they are either spies or pow’s. Either way they can be held until the end of the war without being charged.

POWs get the protection of the Geneva Con. But they can be held without being charged.

Spies - basically anything goes.

If they are noncombatants they must be released

Gitmo interigations and military intelligence determine inocents. Just as if not more effective than due process.(OJ) Innocent or not these men don’t have nations. Due process is not deserved.

What should be the standard for foreign citizens arrested on foreign soil? You seem to be saying anything goes. Are you really comfortable saying that people captured on foreign soil by foreign governments have no rights?

If you say that this case is special because of who the prisoners are, there’s a big gaping hole in your argument. You’re assuming that those people actually are enemy combatants. Without legal due process, there’s no way we can know for sure if it’s true. It’s possible that every single one of them was caught in the act of attacking American soldiers out of uniform. It’s also possible that they were taken by an Afghan warlord in a raid on the Kabul Chess Club where they were having a spirited tournament and then handed over to the Army.

Of course, that’s unlikely, but without due process, there’s no way to know except to accept the government’s word for it. That a standard I’d think anyone should be far too cynical to accept.

Here’s another way to think of it. Here’s the policy that is being supported: it’s acceptable for the government of Country A to arrest a citizen of Country B in Country C and whisk him to a secret prison in Country D without any redress or due process. Is that a reasonable standard? I definitely don’t think so. Since I’m living in Germany, this policy would mean that I’d have no chance of ever being released if the British government arrested me here and whisked me off to a secret prison on one of their bases in Cyprus. If anyone complains, all they need to do is call me an enemy combatant without providing any proof, and my fate is sealed.

Is that really an acceptable policy for civilized societies? I don’t think so, and I definitely don’t want my government championing that policy in my name.

Tony

I see nothing in there about locking them up without a trial. I agree, imprison them after trying them.

What is Your IRA response supposed to mean?

You know what, let’s say hypothetically that you are correct about them not having rights under GC or US law. Aren’t WE supposed to be championing the cause of freedom? If we believe in the right to trial, we should want it for everyone.

If we give the detainees a fair trial, we are the moral superior. We can say to the world, we act according to our beliefs.

If not, someone will always be able to say that we were trying to hide something

n/a said

“How do we know they are terrorists? Just because you say so? ” then went on to quote bible verses!!

so acording to his logic there is no such thing as “god”

just because you said so doesnt make it so
untill you prove it in a court of law!

We’ll champion the cause of freedom to those who support it and want it. 3000+ american civilians are dead and counting and you people would rather defend these scum of the earth than our own soldiers. God help our soldiers if they are captured. The anti-american propagana you people spread will come back to haunt us. Support us for once. America is the greatest good in the world not the greatest evil. Our president will do what it takes to protect us. He is not the first(Roosevelt - Japanese internment camps).

The anti-american propagana you people spread will come back to haunt us.

And you wonder why you have trouble having an intelligent debate with Liberals. Can you actually deal with the issues brought up, or do you have to resort to questioning our patriotism?

Tony, I have read about a dozen of your comments, which in different iterations say exactly the same thing, and you address no one in particular in debate.

Please stop. Make your point but, not 10 times over. Just filling up the comments with the same message over and over will be viewed as an abuse of our privileges, since it places obstacles in the way of others staying up on the threads of comments and participating in them.

We welcome your perspective, but, please don’t be a broken record in our comments section.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Tony
you act like we want to set them free. I don’t want to set them free! If we want to hold the high ground, we have to prove they are bad. I don’t think we should give rights just to those who agree with us. That’s not how this democracy thing works. I’m not being anti-american. I’m trying to create the case that we are the best, and GW is dragging us down to a low where other countries don’t respect us and won’t help us when we need it. And we DO need their help.

It’s not a matter of whether they agree with us or not. They killed us. They killed civilians. A trial would be a waste of time and money, and it would cost lives because the info we need would not be recieved. Innocent are always caught in the mix, no system is perfect. Gitmo will save lives. I don’t care what the rest of the world thinks is the high ground, since when has any other nation been one to champion that.

Oh and Mr. Watchblog editor I am making legitimate comments and if I wasn’t on this page there would be a bunch of libs agreeing with each other. If you don’t like what I’m saying kick me off. Or how about working on some better editors.

Which of those detainees killed civilians? If they were captured in Afghanistan, they might have killed soldiers. If they were picked up in the US who says they killed anybody? Only a court of Law can decide that.

BTW, we’ve championed the high ground in almost every war in our history, and for good reason: we had the high ground! It’s one of the great things about the US. I don’t think you get that.

Gitmo won’t save lives. Gitmo is the recruitment center for anti-americanism. More people WILL die due to Gitmo.

They killed us. They killed civilians.

Clarification: I’m not saying that terrorists didn’t kill Americans in 9/11, Yemen, etc.. I’m saying that we haven’t established that the individuals in Gitmo are guilty of what you assume.

Personally, since the Taliban were very much in lock-step with Al Qaeda, protecting Al Qaeda, providing Al Qaeda a place to train and recruit terrorists, and since the Taliban were terrorizing and murdering their own people, I’d classify the Taliban as terrorists too.

Tony——-

For all our sakes…..give it rest.
I mean get real,& you know what a Long Winded SOB I can be.

Thank You,
Wayne

Who’s to say a court will discover innocents more effectively than interagation.

Oh, I don’t know, about 500 years of human history.

That history proves the humanity of the courts and the justice of the courts, but in this situation there is no reason to believe they would be more effective.

I think humanity IS the point here

Tony, if you are sure that these people are terrorists, why don’t you let them be convicted in a trial (I’m sure you have bucketloads of evidence that they were terrorists). After the conviction, you can have them serve that life sentence you always wanted them to.

Warren:

I think it’s because Tony doesn’t actually believe in due process as a means of finding guilt or innocence, he favors interrogation alone as the means of determining it:

Gitmo interigations and military intelligence determine inocents. Just as if not more effective than due process.(OJ)

Who’s to say a court will discover innocents more effectively than interagation.

Apparently, he’s never heard of the idea of false confessions obtained through interrogation, or the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Tony is no longer posting here. He was logging in under a few different names and conducting a conversation with himself under his various aliases. He apparently found debating with others a bit too daunting.

Tony-
Your Geneva comment about the Taliban probably doesn’t cut it. If that were the case, all an opponent would have to do to commit war crimes on us and get away with it would be to drop their recognition of our nation.

I believe the Geneva Conventions bind signatories, not nations in a certain relationship. As long as the Taliban threw uniformed soldiers our way, they counted as POWs. I think what Bush created this whole new category of Geneva Convention combatant from thin air, deciding by presidential fiat, not by consultation with the governing international bodies what these men were defined as.

The problem, really, is that this whole enemy combatant thing has no standard by which to discern innocence from guilt.

This is a problem. If the standard by which we judge terrorists is unable to discern innocence from guilt, we will inevitably waste more time, money, reputation- whatever- interrogating, incarcerating, and even killing innocent people.

An efficient war on terrorism is one where we can more effectively determine friend from foe, and limit the damage to life and limb to the latter. We need a war on terrorism that shows as discerning, tough, and effective opponents , not showing us as some walking stereotypes of corrupt western powers.

I would not have us close Gitmo. But I would have us make it a more effective tool in the War on Terrorism. One thing in the way of that is a definition of our enemy that does not allow us to discern friend from foe.

Tony is a fake person, eh? Could he be a shill? I heard the RNC are setting up some sites to make Liberals look bad. There was one that claimed to be Liberal and called GI’s murderers, sodomists, etc.

Could WatchBlog be infiltrated by these sabotuers?

Off the subject completely, but don’t know where to put it or if it is of interest to anyone.

I happen to love America and it’s flag. I just read that Congress voted 286 to 130 to prevent desecrating the American flag.

That’s 130 people who voted to allow it.

The article went on to say that it would not get through the senate.

Are we prepared to allow burning and otherwise desecrating the American Flag?

steve smith-
What’s more important, the flag, which feels no pain, lives no life, and only exists as a fabric symbol of our union, or the free speech of the citizens of this country? If a piece of fabric, however important symbolically, becomes what we protect first, then we are well and truly screwed-up as a nation. People matter more than things.

Hence, the problem with a blog with three designated sections:
[X] partisan games with one group agitating the other (such as suspected by some above)
[X] duplication of topics and comments
[X] perpetuating the myth of the necessity of political parties, which hopelessly divides the people over all the wrong reasons
[X] distraction from the topic of discussion via seduction into participation in petty partisan bickering and other less important issues
[X] no mechanism in place to really keep one party from crowding another, but in fact invites such abuses

dan:

What would you recommend? I have been to other Republican Blogs. They are about as open as the KKK to Blacks. Anything that doesn’t say “You’re absolutely right” is banned faster than anything.

I like this Blog. What I am concerned about are people who are deliberately trying to destroy it. As I said, certain Conservatives have been known to try.

I have no desire to burn the flag, and wouldn’t encourage anyone to do so.

However, banning flag-burning is tyrannincal and worse than the act of burning the flag.

Being a true American is about the ideals you live, not the symbol of it (a piece of cloth). One of the most American values is the right of the people to criticize their government, challenge it, and replace it if they so wish. Our nation was founded by people acting on those very rights and principles to defy tyranny.

Aldous wrote: d.a.n: What would you recommend? I have been to other Republican Blogs. They are about as open as the KKK to Blacks. Anything that doesn’t say “You’re absolutely right” is banned faster than anything. I like this Blog. What I am concerned about are people who are deliberately trying to destroy it. As I said, certain Conservatives have been known to try.

Aldous, I sort of like this blog too, and I’ve made some recommendations for it:
(1) Don’t divide it into three sections (e.g. Republicans, Democrats, 3rd Parties), due to reasons stated above.
(2) Allow links to supporting paragraphs and arguments as long as they are germane to the topic of discussion (i.e. and not obvious spam attempting to sell products, solicit for money, donations, etc.).
(3) Keep doing everything else the same (i.e. discourage vulgarity, name calling, and threats, and encourage “critique the message, not the messenger”).

d.a.n.-
Yes, folks will agitate each other. Yes, there are times when the different sides post about the same things. No, we don’t always treat party politics as a necessary component of discourse. We have our columns, but our opinions aren’t always a neat fit for them. Yes, we do get sidetracked into partisan bickering, but at least that’s not all the discussion is. As for crowding, each side can only crowd themselves. That’s the beauty of the three column approach: nobody can dominate another party’s discourse.

I like the three party layout, especially since there is no artificial barrier to posting outside one’s political realm. I like the fact that I don’t simply say things and get agreed with, that this site forces me to think in terms of arguments that appeal to more than just liberals.

I’ve been to sites where on party rules, or where everything’s just a free for all, and I have to say the three-column arrangement is a good compromise between those. It allows for safe harbors for the different viewpoints, protected from partisan editors who might censor certain points of view, while at the same time not creating bubbles that protect points of view from the other side’s critiques.

I’ve posted here for well over a year now, and folks post and comment to this blog from all walks of life, and from many stages. It ranges from the young to the old to the dying, from the blue collar to the white collar, from the employed to the unemployed, from teacher to butcher to baker and candlestick-maker. People of all political stripes have shown the willingness to compromise, to understand the other side, and I would venture that few here lack for a love of this country.

Though you would like to see Watchblog as a failed experiment, because people aren’t as receptive to your idea as you’d like them to be, the fact is it’s succeeded brilliantly. I think it’s a model to be further explored. Much as you’d like people to change to your point of view on these things, people make their own choices. Watchblog allows this witin reason.

Stephen Daugherty,

Now, there you go again. I never said Watchblog was a failed experiment? In fact, directly above your last post, I said I like this blog too, but you again extrapolate to an extreme conclusion; another non-sequitur, after I merely pointed out a couple things (constructively) that I think are a problem.

A two-or-three-party political system in this country seems to be an affliction we can’t cure. That may be a current reality, but it doesn’t mean it’s the only realistic way, much less the best way.

The three party blog layout may have some benefits, but it also has negatives. The only benefit I really see that you speak of is that there is an editor for each section with an affiliation with that party, which can help prevent a bias for one party. But, I think that could still be done better with one section with three (or more) editors.

Regarding my one-simple-idea…of course I’d like to convince people it has potential to balance power (not simply shift power). But, I realize it’s extremely unlikely, since the people have grown far too complacent, apathetic, and resigned to the futility of making a difference or ever reforming a government that is more and more fiscally and morally bankrupt, irresponsible, and unaccountable. And you’re wrong about people not being receptive to the idea. Many are receptive, and the few that aren’t, don’t really give good reasons (if any). The best 3 reasons so far is the complacency of the average voter, the entrenchment of the two-party (mainly) political system, and the potential split between multiple non-incumbents that could still fail to unseat an incumbent. However, 100% is not necessary. 20% or 40% or even 60% of incumbents voted out would change the political landscape significantly.

However, it is something that theoretically could work, and might peacefully force reform, and might resonate with voters if they ever snap out of their paralysis of complacency and futility.

Until there’s a better plan, I’ll favor the one that has the best chance. There aren’t many other plans that have the required force necessary to give government an incentive to reform. Other plans are to just keep doin’ what we’re doin’ , and that ain’t workin’

Also, for every person that ever had a good idea, there were hundreds or thousands that said it was impossible. You can’t always listen to nay-sayers that flippantly say it’s impossible, but can’t convincingly say why. And, you have to wonder about those that vehemently oppose someone who is looking for solutions to perplexing problems.

POW - captured by Iraqi’s in the first Guld War.

Colonel Clifford Acree, USMC

Col. (then-Lt. Col.) Clifford Acree?s OV-10 ?Bronco? aircraft was shot down by a surface-to-air missile in Kuwait on the second day of the war. He suffered a whiplash-like injury to his neck during the ejection procedure. Within minutes, he was taken prisoner by Iraqi soldiers. He was restrained with handcuffs that were so tight they cut off circulation and cut into his wrist bone, causing significant pain and causing his hands to swell and become numb. During his transportation to Baghdad, he was brutally beaten, often in time to music.

In Baghdad, interrogations and brutal beatings continued around the clock for several days, each episode lasting from twenty minutes to an hour. Col. Acree was threatened with death if he did not cooperate. He was struck with fists and other instruments to his entire upper body, but his captors cruelly focused on his injured neck. Because he was blindfolded, he never knew where the blows were coming from. The beatings were so frequent, however, that he learned to distinguish between the sound of a closed fist and that of other weapons. He also had to endure the agony of hearing other POWs being tortured.

His captors determined that he was a lieutenant colonel and a squadron leader, and they correctly assumed he had important, detailed military information. At that point, the interrogations and beatings became worse. The Iraqi captors tortured him violently in a futile attempt to extract valuable strategic information. Often, the beatings ended only when he was rendered unconscious. Despite the relentless torture, Col. Acree refused to provide information that would have endangered the Allied forces.

Col. Acree?s captors also tormented him with stories of torture they had inflicted on POWs in the Iran-Iraq war. One interrogator told him about the interrogation of an Iranian pilot, in which they had taken a period of three days to cut off one of his testicles. When Col. Acree was later subjected to an inspection to determine if he was circumcised, he feared that he would suffer the same fate as the Iranian pilot.

The guards beat Col. Acree?s head with such force that they broke his nose and fractured his skull. After the first few days of torture, he could not walk without assistance. The guards subjected him to mock executions and injected him with an unidentified drug during an interrogation. They forced him to make a propaganda video, but he refused to read the scripted message and, instead, merely sent a message intended to let his wife and family know that he was alive. He steadfastly refused to denounce the president or the Allied effort and, as a result, he was beaten even more severely.

Col. Acree was held in a freezing, dirty cell at the Iraqi Intelligence Service regional headquarters. His diet was so meager that he lost approximately 30 pounds during his captivity. Death from starvation alone was likely had the war lasted much longer. To survive, he ate a small piece of soiled bread he found behind the toilet and he ate the scabs off his own body. He developed conjunctivitis, lice infestation, and a severe intestinal disorder from the unsanitary conditions.

The building in which Col. Acree was held, a legitimate military target, was bombed by Allied forces on February 23, 1991. Col. Acree survived the bombing — a bombing which probably prevented the threatened dismemberment he was to have suffered the next day.

During his forty-seven days in captivity, his status as a POW was never reported by Iraq. The fear he experienced throughout his captivity that his wife had been given no information about his capture and status as a POW unfortunately was well founded.

Following his release, Col. Acree experienced insomnia and outbursts of anger. He feared losing control of his behavior. He believes that his marriage was affected by his impatience, his reduced emotions, and his reluctance to depend on anyone else. He had to undergo four painful reconstructive surgeries to repair his shattered nose and septum and broken facial bones, and to align airways in his skull. Each surgery brought back vivid flashbacks of the torture endured while in captivity in Iraq. As a result of having his nose repeatedly bludgeoned by his captors, he completely lost the sense of smell for several years, and it remains impaired to this day.

Col. Acree?s hands remained numb for months after his release. He still suffers ongoing numbness in two fingers of his right hand from the Iraqi torture. He also has a rapid heart beat during medical exams and physical exercise. He has considerable hearing loss, and sudden noises startle him. His neck often becomes stiff and sometimes produces sharp pains, incapacitating him for two to five days at a time.

In 1992, Col. Acree was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (?PTSD?) arising from his mistreatment in Iraq. In 1998, while on assignment to NATO, he suffered what was diagnosed as a Major Depressive Episode coincident with a recurrence of PTSD. He returned to the United States, where he was placed on medical leave during seven months of psychiatric treatment. He still suffers a number of problems caused by his captivity, including rapid and irregular heartbeat, low back pain, night sweats, headaches, nervousness when stressed, irritability when tired, numbness and tingling in his upper extremities, and some hearing loss and tinnitus.

The mistreatment of Col. Acree by his captors has significantly reduced the quality of his life during the twelve years since his release. He is not the same person he was before he became a POW, and has not been able to return to full mental and physical health. As a result, he will always suffer the consequences of his captors? inhumane treatment.

More detail regarding the horrific captivity experiences and heroism of Col. Acree and his wife’s battle for him at home may be found in The Gulf Between Us: A Story of Love and Survival in Desert Storm, Brassey’s, Inc. (June 2001).

This is a story of one man. I have 16 more accounts. My father flew F-111’s during Operation Desert Storm, and the stories he has told me concerning the treatment of recognized POW’s in Iraqi “detention facilities” has stripped me of mercy. Terrorists deserve no mercy. None.

You know what I’ll raise my eyebrows at: Dogs eating Iraqi prisoners alive. Pictures of our Armed Servicemen violently shoving cattle prods into the “sensitive” body regions of terrorists. The continued electrocution of prisoners. Making them eat feces, drink urine, or being injected with drugs. These are the Humanitarian violations that the men and women of our military have had to endure since World War I. It has continued, unabated to this very day. Do you really think I care about some terrorist being stripped and beaten in the face of the prolonged horror our Armed Servicemen have been subjected to? It’s about time people wake up to what really happens in war.

Brian,
As far as I’m concern you just MADE the case for humane treatment of the detainees and quick adjudication.

WE’RE the good guys! It makes me sick to hear how our soldiers are treated. I’d love to get revenge, but it would have the opposite effect: instead of making the bad guys scared of us, it would give them more rationale for torture.

d.a.n.

Should we ban cross burning. If you allow expression, you should allow all expression. If you disallow expression….well, you know the rest.

Brian,

Thank you for that post. It further reinforces my position that methods used by us to interrogate the terrorists, POW’s, etc. pales incomparison to the treatment received by Colonel Acree.

Stephen Daugherty and d.a.n,

Your posts regarding my information about the flag burning were as predictable as night following day.

The very symbol of what America stands for is represented by that flag. Peoples around the world cannot always hear us, read our words, understand our rights and freedoms,, etc. but the mere sight of our flag sends the message of our pride in our country and, the awesome power it is capable of.

Through the years the very first thing that was ordered during a seige on a US military installation and/or battlefield sight was to save the colors.

BTW I never compared flag desecration to human rights.

James wrote: d.a.n. Should we ban cross burning. If you allow expression, you should allow all expression. If you disallow expression….well, you know the rest.

James,

I wrote above:

However, banning flag-burning is tyrannincal and worse than the act of burning the flag.
Being a true American is about the ideals you live, not the symbol of it (a piece of cloth). One of the most American values is the right of the people to criticize their government, challenge it, and replace it if they so wish. Our nation was founded by people acting on those very rights and principles to defy tyranny.

To answer your question: Should we ban flag burning? The answer is No. All expression should be allowed, provided it does not violate the rights of any other person. That is, if someone wants to burn a flag, they’d better not do it in a way that it damages someone elses’ property. We all have inalienable human rights outlined in the Constitution. If someone burns a flag, are my rights violated? No. I might not even know about it. That’s their business. Personally, I think flag burning isn’t constructive, and energy could be used better working on solutions, instead of disrespectful protest.

We, increasingly, seem to have a problem in this country understanding what peoples rights are, and are perverting the laws to make it do the very thing it is supposed to prevent.

The most fundamental laws are simple and plain common sense, that still escape many.

[1] Anyone can do anything they want, provided they don’t violate anyone else’s rights.
[2] FORCE is unacceptable except to protect one’s own inalienable rights & property, and bring criminals to justice.
[3] Any one who violates some other persons’ rights, may forfeit their own inalienable rights; and punishment and/or restitution will required.

NOTE: If you always apply this simple test, you’ll more easily be able to determine what laws are just, and which are not. It’s not really that difficult, but there are some instances where what we do harm others indirectly, and laws are required to protect the rights of others. For example: A law prohibiting smoking in public places is necessary, because second-hand smoke is harmful to other people. Smoking while you put gasoline in your automobile is illegal, because it endangers people around you. Driving over the speed limit is illegal because it endangers other people.

________________________________________
Personally, a law banning flag burning doesn’t present much of a problem to most people, but it should be a red-flag to people, that government is headed down the path of tyranny, when it begins to restrict free speech.

The interesting thing is that flag burning could be banned for other reasons other than being disrespectful. For example: Flag burning could be deemed illegal because the fire is hazardous, and pollutes the air. Now, that may be fair and just reason for banning flag burning.

d.a.n.

Reading is essential.

I didn’t say a thing about FLAG burning.

I asked shouls we ban CROSS burning ?

Expression of hate is expression of hate, regardless of what you hate.

steve smith wrote: The very symbol of what America stands for is represented by that flag. Peoples around the world cannot always hear us, read our words, understand our rights and freedoms,, etc. but the mere sight of our flag sends the message of our pride in our country and, the awesome power it is capable of.

Steve Smith,
I also don’t like to see our flag burned. I don’t recommend it. Respectfully, however, there are ideals that are bigger than symbols and what people think. And, pride in one’s self is not a good trait. It’s a character flaw. And the message regarding flag burning could also send is that America allows free speech. In some countries, that display of free speech may land you in jail or get you killed. Is that what you want?

The signal we send to the world should be that we uphold the inalienable rights of all people. People of other nations will see that the country can survive someone burning a flag.

What this country may not survive is far far more important than the issue of flag burning. I’m not inclined to want to spend more time and effort on more pressing problems that are far far more dangerous to the health of this nation:
________(sorry,…I’d provide a link to this list, but I’m not allowed to do that anymore)____________
(01) discrimination and crimes based on religion, race, gender, age, wealth, sexual preference, etc.; violation of basic rights;
(02) insufficient law enforcement; lack of protection of basic rights; perversion of the law, and legal plunder to do the very thing the law is supposed to prevent;
(03) a dysfunctional and corrupt legal system with too many greedy, corrupt, and parasitic ambulance chasers, and idiotic juries ruining everything for everyone else;
(04) a dysfunctional election system; unfair and illegal barriers preventing third party candidates from getting on election ballots; limited voting choices and candidates (which could be improved by an Approval Voting system); corrupt campaign finance; negative campaigning; pandering; influence by wealthy and/or powerful special interest groups; government for sale; buying elections; 90% of elections are won by the candidate with the most money, giving rise to an elitist and arrogant government;
(05) Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, Afghanistan, etc.; proliferation of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons; and weapons of mass destruction;
(06) terrorism;
(07) unsecured borders; illegal aliens/trespassers; and governments that will not enforce the laws; governments will not prosecute those that illegally employ illegal trespassers;
(08) $8 trillion national debt and a looming potential financial meltdown due to the combination of massive annual budget deficits;
(09) Social Security; looming shortfalls due to decades of plundering surpluses; increasingly more recipients, and decreasing revenues;
(10) Medicare; looming shortfalls
(11) aging population; magnifying the Social Security and Medicare revenue shortfalls; increasing entitlement recipients and decreasing entitlement tax payers and revenues;
(12) health care crisis; increasingly unaffordable and unreliable health care and health insurance;
(13) energy vulnerability; no energy plan; insufficient dedication to implement alternate fuel and power sources;
(14) corporate/investor fraud; cooking the books; stock fraud; failure of the SEC to regulate and prosecute violators;
(15) insolvent and plundered pensions;
(16) looming bankruptcy of the Government Pension Benefit Guaranty Group;
(17) global warming and pollution and damage to the atmosphere, land, and water; trillions of tons of green-house gases released into the atmosphere; depletion of the ozone that is required to protect against harmful radiation and global warming;
(18) globalization and outsourcing, falling incomes, declined manufacturing (will we forget how to make things?), the race to the bottom;
(19) increasingly stupid, costly, unfair, and abused tax system;
(20) foreign policy that alienates allies;
(21) declining quality of public education; decreasing numbers of science and engineering graduates; falling scores in most subjects;
(22) the 40 hour work week is more like 50+ hours (and now, typically also 2 workers per household);
(23) crumbling infrastructure (roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, ports, air ports, buildings, water treatment, etc.);
(24) urban sprawl, 40+ hours per month (540 per year) commuting, traffic grid-lock;
(25) world over-population in areas that can’t sustain those populations, resulting in poverty, starvation, disease, crime, etc.;
(26) a corrupt and impoverished neighbor: Mexico;
(27) an irresponsible, incompetent, arrogant, government that lacks transparency and accountability, and can’t seem to solve these many problems, or do anything quickly and efficiently, except vote themselves raises;
(28) an apathetic voting population that does not recognize the one simple solution within their power to peacefully force government to be responsible, transparent, and accountable; rather than despair that a single vote will make no difference, there is one-simple-idea that provides a solution to voters that is: easy to understand, easy to do, wisely uses the one thing each voter already has, and costs nothing: their vote
________________________________________

So, Steve…please do not misunderstand my position. I don’t advocate flag burning. I personally don’t have a great deal of respect for that behavior. But, there’s a more important and more fundamental ideal than the act. Regardless of me dislike of the act, I begrudginly recognize the right of free speech. I’ve seen dozens of countries around the world and lived in the middle east, and I love the United States, and still believe it’s better than most around the world. I merely want it to be better, and I am truly concerned about the path it is on (see below). It’s not just alarmist or paranoid. We’ve got some serious problems (above) that are leading toward a potential melt-down and demise of the United States, and we need to priortize and focus on the primary problems. We’ve got to find a solution soon, to snap the people out of their apathy and futility, and restore a balance of power (not just shift it) between the people and government, or we will repeat history. We will return to oppression and tyranny:

Oh…sorry James.
You are correct. I missed that important difference. You said: Should cross burning be illegal?

ANSWER: No. I don’t think so, if the reason is merely because it’s a matter of freedom of speech. That is just like flag burning.

What should be illegal though is polluting, since that negatively affects the rights of others. Flag and cross burning could be banned because it creates pollution.

For the sake of clarity, the amendment itself wouldn’t ban flag burning. It would give Congress the power to ban it. It says:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

So dan, they should ban it for reasons of pollution.

Do you guys think that if the amendment does pass Congress, enough states will ratify it? How long do you think it would take? To the best of my knowledge, no constitutional amendments have passed Congress in my lifetime, so I haven’t seen the process for myself.

Traveler,

Are you old enough to have seen the Equal Rights Amendment battle. I’m not, so I’m curious about the process, too.

——
Since When do terrorists deserve due process. They don’t fight for a nation and they specifically target civilians. They don’t even fall under the genvea convention. They clearly don’t deserve a trial.
——
Who says they don’t fight for a country? The people we now describe as terroists were fighting in the street against an agressive army on THEIR soil. Are you so damn blind that that’s not fighting for your country?

TheTraveler wrote: So dan, they should ban it for reasons of pollution?

ANSWER: Yes, because I applied the following test (which, if you always apply this simple test, you’ll more easily be able to determine what laws are just, and which are not)…..
_______________________________
[1] Anyone can do anything they want, provided they don’t violate anyone else’s rights.
[2] FORCE is unacceptable except to protect one’s own inalienable rights & property, and bring criminals to justice.
[3] Any one who violates some other persons’ rights, may forfeit their own inalienable rights; and punishment and/or restitution will required.
_______________________________
….and concluded that pollution is a valid reason for banning the unnecessary buring of anything, because it violates the rights of others by creating unnecessary pollution, and creates a fire hazard. Many cities already prohibit burning things (e.g. garbage, leaves, fireworks, etc.) because of the fire hazards and pollution. And how many protesters have already caught themselves or others on fire by accident ?
: )

“Should cross burning be illegal?”

Not if it’s your cross, on your property, and meets all appropriate fire code regulations.

Burning a cross on someone else’s property should be illegal, as should burning a cross too close to a residence or other structure.

Likewise, flag burning shouldn’t be illegal, as long as the same conditions are met.

Dan,
I meant to say that they could. I wasn’t asking if they should. Sorry for the confusion. Bad proofreading on my part.

LawnBoy,
Most of the ERA stuff took place before my time. I was born in ’79 when it was starting to wind down, so what did happen in my lifetime I was too young to remember.

Rob Cottrell,

Usually the flag is burn in the town square or “down town”

What about displaying pictures of 6 month old fetuses with their heads cut open and their brains sucked out with a vacuum cleaner.

Is that a form of political expression ? Can we fly that in the town square ?

To those of you who support/advocate the burning of the American Flag based on the Constitutional right granting free speech/expression :

I have researched this thoroughly and have found that the right of free speech does include burning the flag, having a demonstration where the flag is stepped on and other acts of desecration.

In fact I have reference cases to cite that upheld this right in the past. There is however no point to listing those because they only serve to solidify the flag burning privilege.

It seems that an amendment to exclude flag burning would give Congress the power to prohibit desecration of the American Flag. Even with this a great deal more steps would be necessary in order to achieve the (my) goal.

I believe in free speech/freedom of expression, etc. In my mind there can be exceptions worth fighting for and I shall do so.

When I see American Flag desecration it makes me angry and both physically and emotionally distraught.

I will post no more on this topic.

To those of you who support/advocate the burning of the American Flag based on the Constitutional right granting free speech/expression:

To whom are you speaking? No one here advocates burning the flag. There are many here who advocate not banning burning the flag. There’s a significant difference.

I have researched this thoroughly and have found that the right of free speech does include burning the flag, having a demonstration where the flag is stepped on and other acts of desecration.

I suggest you send this information to the Supreme Court. They seem not to have had access to your research when making past decisions on the issue.

Here’s their address:
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Where I live, I’m not allowed to burn leaves in my back yard.

James wrote: What about displaying pictures of 6 month old fetuses with their heads cut open and their brains sucked out with a vacuum cleaner?

So, if we apply the following test again (which, if you always apply this simple test, you’ll more easily be able to determine what laws are just, and which are not)…..
_______________________________
[1] Anyone can do anything they want, provided they don’t violate anyone else’s rights.
[2] FORCE is unacceptable except to protect one’s own inalienable rights & property, and bring criminals to justice.
[3] Any one who violates some other persons’ rights, may forfeit their own inalienable rights; and punishment and/or restitution will required.
_______________________________

…..
CONCLUSION: We should respect the right of those that show such gruesome pictures. The only potential constraint or limitation by law may be the allowed location, time, and method, since such images may traumatize and harm young children (thus, violating their rights).

Such protesters should be respectfult of the affect on small children (and adults too) who have a right to be in a public place also, without being exposed to extremely disturbing material. And, news stations and media do not have to display those pictures on prime-time TV. There is a better time and place such things. Therefore, such protests should be required to get a permit and display warnings, so that people are warned and parents can avoid exposing children and themselves to such horrific images.

Having said that, I only occassional tried to shield my children from such images. Sometimes, we discouraged certain movies and such, because of occassional nightmares that sometimes resulted. But, we can not shield our children forever from the ugly things in the world. They must eventually learn to deal with them.
_________________________________

Steve Smith,
Flag burning is a bit disturbing, but I recognize the important right to protest, and I can not make myself want to ban it by law (based on the purpose of protest), because that is just symbolism, and a piece of cloth, and I refuse to let anyone who wants to burn a flag shake my beliefs or change my values quite so easily. Also, don’t let them taunt you. That’s what they want. Ignore it if you disagree with it. The more opposed to it you become, the more they’ll want to burn more flags to taunt you. Don’t fuel the fire with indignation and dismay.

Remember the voodoo doll and sticking with a pin ?

It’s like that. If you place too much importance on symbols, you make your self vulnerable. It’s just a symbol. Don’t allow it to be used against you.

Also, we’ve got much much more important and pressing problems (see list above).

the title if this thread is misleading
it should read”guantanamo is not a problem after all, we were wrong!

lets look at the poll taken this week

A Rasmussen Reports survey conducted this week found that 36 percent of Americans say the detainees are being treated better than they deserve, and another 34 percent say they are being treated about right. Just one in five say the detainees are being treated unfairly, with 10 percent saying they do not know.

70 percent of americans say they are treated as well or BETTER than they deserve!!!!

thats 30% of your own party!!! if 100% of republicans said yes. and we will place the 10% if uninformed in the dem side as well.
——————————————————————-
then we get this gem!
On Tuesday, Mrs. Pelosi and three other top Democrats called for a commission to investigate reported abuses of detainees from the war on terror. Mrs. Pelosi said it is past time that the administration established a policy on determining the fates of the detainees at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, arguing that most are from Afghanistan and that the conflict there has ended.

A few moments later, she said: “This isn’t about the duration of the war. The war in Afghanistan IS OVER.”

when did the war end again? oh thats right, its NOT over!

Listen, I’m just arguing a point here. I was in the Army for 21 years. I’d like to think I was protecting to constitution and the right to peaceful protest, including the right to burn the flag.

Personally I would never burn the US flag, maybe the california state flag, but never the stars and stripes. And I will fight to stop anyone I see burning the US flag.

I also do not condone cross burning, but whether you and I condone it or not, should not be the basis for making it illegal.

You will go to jail if you get caught burning a cross in this country, you will get on the 6 o’clock news if you burn a flag. The fetus pictures that I mentioned were order by a court to be taken down.

Again, if you allow expression of hate, you must allow all expressions of hate, as long as they are peaceful.

T C,
Thanks, I was wondering when someone would mention this poll…

70 percent of Americans say they are treated as well or BETTER than they deserve!!!!

I’ll bet this’ll surprise a few people here…
Now why would so many Americans feel this way? Hmmm… Could it be that all the people screaming “torture” have no evidence to show for it? Could it be that from what we have heard, in some ways the prisoners at gitmo are being treated better than some of our citizens in civilian Prisons?

Could it possibly be that some people act like they care more about the rights of terrorists than the lives of Americans, and the average person is getting sick of it?

Could it be that there are open-minded Democrats? Democrats who want some kind of proof before they are willing to jump on the torture bandwagon? Sorry to break this to some of you, but there are (thankfully) quite a few people in both parties who won’t toe the party line without a reason.

TheTraveler wrote: Could it possibly be that some people act like they care more about the rights of terrorists than the lives of Americans, and the average person is getting sick of it?

Yes. I must admit (and I was wrong) that my reaction at first was “jeeez…what a bunch of bleedin’ hearts, gettin’ all worked up about some low-life terrorists gettin’ roughed up a tiny bit.”

That is, until the Spc Sean Baker story got some publiciity (where one of our own posing as a prisoner was beaten by MPs and sustained brain damage).

I want to believe my government doesn’t engage and condone torture, or worse. When these crimes to occur, I feel a bit ashamed. But it’s unrealistic to expect bad things to never occur. There’s always a few bad apples. While no violation of any persons’ rights should be trivialized, I’m not convinced yet that there is rampant torture and mistreatment of prisoners. But, there should be ZERO tolerance. The hard part is, how do you achieve that. Transparency is the key. As with everything, we’ve got to keep everything in the open to reduce the opportunities for abuse.

LawnBoy,

Texas vs Johnson 1989

Spence vs Washington 1974

US vs O’Brien 1968 - Court makes it illegal to burn draft card

Schact vs US 1970

steve,

ummm…. Texas vs. Johnson is one of the decisions to which I linked. It invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag in force in 48 of the 50 states.

How does that help your point?

I think this flag burning thing is actually just another very clever distraction from more important issues.

Who started this ? Clever indeed. I’ve been wondering what it would be next. Now we get to watch the politicians wrap themselves in the flag, get everyone riled and worked up, stir it up, and make it stink.

Because, the whole thing isn’t that important.
Some people get really upset about it.
But, they shouldn’t let themselves be so easily taunted over a symbol. The flag is only a symbol like a voodoo doll to stick pins in or burn. Don’t foolishly let disrespect of a symbol drive you crazy, or they’ll just do it more. True American values and meaningful deeds are what really matter.

Just be careful about this….some politicians are going to make a political football out of it to distract us from other things.

And for those flag burners…. do you want to know what will irritate them the most? Ignore them !
You aren’t vulnerable to mere manipulation of a symbol.

I have been challenging myself for the last 6 weeks or so to see if I would have anything to contribute to a forum such as this. It is obvious that I am unable to address issues without getting overly spirited angry and emotional.

You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

Thank you for the opportunity, I will no longer be posting.

steve smith,
Wait! Don’t go away. I think you contribute a lot. Don’t underestimate yourself. Your viewpoint is more important than you think.

Look at all that can be learned here.
I’ve learned a lot, and it can humbling, but it’s very constructive, and people need to talk, and share, and work toward solutions for our many pressing problems.

In response to international outrage over Abu Ghraib, American politicians and intellectuals have declared that America needs to make a concerted effort to win over “world opinion.” “In fact,” says Alex Epstein, a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, “the hypocritical and unjust condemnations of America for Abu Ghraib demonstrate that appeasing ‘world opinion’ is depraved and suicidal.”

“Throughout the Middle East,” observes Epstein, “torture—real torture, with electric drills and vats of acid—is official policy and daily practice. Yet there are no worldwide condemnations of the dictatorships that practice such atrocities—let alone the Arab-Islamic culture that produces so many torturers. But when a handful of American prison guards subject a handful of Iraqi POWs to comparatively mild humiliation, ‘world opinion’ condemns America.”

“So-called ‘world opinion’,” explains Epstein, “is not some unanimous and just consensus, but the irrational and unjust opinion of the world’s worst people: the Islamists who seek to subjugate the world to Islamic rule, the socialists and pacifists who seek to subjugate US sovereignty to UN rule, and the legions of ‘moderate’ followers who support or sympathize with these goals. The proper response to these people is not appeals and concessions, but to identify them as our ideological and political enemies, to kill and demoralize the violent ones, and to discredit the rest.”

“President Bush, despite the complaints of his critics, has been the consummate appeaser of ‘world opinion.’ Instead of discrediting anti-American Muslims, he has appealed to their sensibilities and met their demands—e.g., sacrificing American soldiers to save Iraqi civilians and mosques, and striving to make the Iraqi occupation not look ‘too American.’ Instead of destroying the terrorist regimes that wage war against the West—including Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority—he has sought their “cooperation” and even cast some as ‘coalition partners.’”

“Every attempt to appease ‘world opinion’ preserves and emboldens our enemies. America needs leadership with the honesty and courage to say, ‘Let world opinion be damned!’”

James,

That is possibly the scariest post I’ve seen on WatchBlog to date! Consider the implications of bringing that precident closer to home by changing just a few words:

American politicians and intellectuals have declared that American political candidates need to make a concerted effort to win over “American opinion.”

…

“So-called ‘American opinion’… is not some unanimous and just consensus, but the irrational and unjust opinion of the country’s worst people: the Christians who seek to subjugate the country to Christian rule, the socialists and pacifists who seek to subjugate state sovereignty to Federal rule, and the legions of ‘moderate’ followers who support or sympathize with these goals. The proper response to these people is not appeals and concessions, but to identify them as our ideological and political enemies, to kill and demoralize the violent ones, and to discredit the rest.”

A bit more frightening, isn’t it?