 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! December 31, 2009 From the Department of WTFBy GreyhawkSeventy-one percent (71%) of all voters think the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim to blow up the airliner as it landed in Detroit should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act. Only 22% say it should be handled by civilian authorities as a criminal act, as is currently the case. I'm sorry - but just what the #&%! are 71% of voters thinking here? Who exactly in "the military" would conduct this "investigation"? And why is this question even asked? Is this a result of too much NCIS on TV? Update: A smaller majority (58%) "say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day." Do Americans think that's a technique their military uses? And more: It's notable that every recent terrorist incident has been used by the Obama admin to push for extension of Patriot Act provisions. Those extensions were quietly granted as part of the defense bill the president signed into law a few days ago - but based on those poll results (Americans clearly support sanctions far beyond what the Patriot Act grants - but perhaps that's only applicable to swarthy, foreign-looking terrorists) he now has ammunition to push harder for a more permanent authority. Never have so many demanded their rights be placed in the hands of so few, and the folks who seem to be cheering loudest for just that seem to be the president's political opponents. A very interesting New Year ahead, indeed. Posted by Greyhawk / December 31, 2009 3:53 PM | Permalink 13 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
i think that the people do not trust the Justice Dept to sort this out. While they may not fully understand the role of the military you can see how there is less confidence other organs of the Government to get to the bottom of this.
I guess that's a way to look at it, but it's damned scary to me when people in the United States start thinking the military is the solution to a clearly civil/domestic/criminal issue (yes, terrorism is a crime). Bad things have followed that thinking elsewhere in the world.
National Guard responding to major emergencies - even to the rare instance when a declaration of Martial Law might be required - is one thing. This strikes me as something else entirely.
I don't think that "something" is likely, but it disturbs me to think it might be desired.
I do not agree with you on any level at all.
People who are not American Citizens, who do not have valid passport visas to be in the United States of America should not be granted automatic rights of citizens. You might want to try and frame the argument around the idea that these rights are given by a higher power and are inalienable, but that is not what the constitution says. We do not even give legal enemy combatants the extent of rights that our citizens are granted, so why should we grant illegal enemy combatants a higher degree of rights than those who would fight us on as close to a fair battlefield as is possible in war? This man is not a citizen, he is not an enemy combatant, he is an illegal enemy combatant who is breaking every covenant that allows modern governments to be able to negotiate and if needed wage wars without endangering lawful innocent civilians. Thus, this person deserves to turned over to a lower level of rights granted enforcement apparatus, such as military and CIA and coercive interrogation should be placed on him if it is deemed that he is not willing to give full details of what he knows about our illegal enemy combatants and their plans. So, I agree with the 71% and 58% of Americans here.
If this person where a Citizen of the United States of America or was a lawful holder of a valid passport visa, I would grant you that this person would be fully be illegible for full rights. A stipulation is that a lawfully valid passport visa would require that the application of said visa was in fact for the specified purpose of the visit to the United States of America, thus if the real reason for someone to file for a visa is invalid the visa itself is no longer a lawfully valid one, thus negating the right to American court systems.
This in no way removes any rights that you have been granted under the Constitution of the United States of America. Thus, I must wonder what your problem with the American Public is. Is it that you think the public is in fact authorizing a restriction of their rights? I do not find this to be valid, although politicians will of course use it for this reason, it still does not place that burden on the citizen, but on the politicians.
I have an idea for you. You have a nice little web page that gets some number of visitors, maybe you could, instead of trying to protect our enemies, use this space to educate people on the difference between a law you would support to protect yourself, your family and theirs and what the politicians have written. Your problem with the patriot act is that it allows authorities to trample the rights of citizens, why not write up a valid patriot act that shows how this protection can be done without encroaching on citizens rights?
astonerii, I could care less if the underpants bomber just "disappears".
I'm just surprised at the number of people who believe that criminals should be handed over to the US military so that "coercive interrogation" techniques can be used on them. The US military doesn't do that - in fact, it's a court martial offense. (On the other hand, I think Court-Martialing SEALs for allegedly slapping a prisoner is about the dumbest thing ever conceived...)
But other than on television and in movies, the military doesn't have a branch, office, capability, mandate, or jurisdiction to "conduct investigations" of terrorist acts on American territory. I'm also surprised many Americans think otherwise. (I suspect this is due in part to the decreasing percentage of Americans with military experience.)
I'm not complaining about the Patriot Act - I'm expressing still more surprise at the number of Republicans who are willing to express opinions that can be used to justify broad expansion of Executive branch authority to identify and pursue those individuals they deem a "terrorist threat". Most of the more recent threats have come from "home grown" jihadists (Nidal hasan, et al) - not foreign born. I suspect the public expressions of fear reflected in the poll linked above are more in hopes of embarrassing the current administration, but I don't think they'll embarrass so easily.
I'm actually trying to make sense of the results of that poll, which I (obviously) find surprising. And finally, I'm providing a place where folks can express their own thoughts on the same.
America does not torture.
It doesn't even try to "toe the line" on torture.
That is what Reagan declared when he ratified a certain UN edict - if you want to complain, get an ouija board and take it up with him.
Greyhawk, There is no way to make sense of that poll. Unless you get your news from Jon Stewart. 2010 is going to be a challenging year, we will see the best character of Americans, and we may see the worst of americans. With a site like you have, we will have a better chance in seeing the best side of America. Thanks for 2009 may you be blessed in what 2010 brings to you and your family.
"But other than on television and in movies, the military doesn't have a branch, office, capability, mandate, or jurisdiction to "conduct investigations" of terrorist acts on American territory."
You are right, and I did not address the investigative part of the issue. But the military is where war crimes are prosecuted. Terrorism is not just a crime, it is a war crime and needs to be treated as such. We have the CIA to do oversees investigations, along with information sharing 'treaties'(?) with other nations to get the information to the military tribunals. Just because the person is turned over to the military/FBI/CIA does not mean that conventional investigations are to be discontinued, they should not be, but they should be reporting to the military/FBI/CIA (pick one). But the best place to not only get justice for Americans but also provide the most security for American citizens and guests of America through legal visas is through a military court (tribunal or however congress directs the military to do the trial).
Giving non American and uninvited guests access to our court system is a way to ensure that future attackers are better informed on the weaknesses of our country with respect to how we look for terrorists, how we respond to terrorist activity in progress and how we prosecute terrorists.
Americans see terrorists as purely foreigners in general, and instinctively know that these people do not fit the profile of a criminal. People like Timothy McVeigh and other home grown terrorists will go to criminal courts, as American Citizens, they are granted that by the constitution. Others, who do not belong in this country at all, should not be given these rights that many people have fought and died for over the centuries of this great nation, they did not fight others to grant others these rights, they fought to preserve our country and protect our citizens. The constitution is not a suicide pact and it should never be treated as one. We are in an asymmetrical war with an enemy that refuses to do battle, but instead chooses to engage in barbaric acts that defy any sense of honor, and that is what Americans see and that is why they know, at the gut level, these people do not deserve to be treated in a civil polite way.
If I were president, I would make it my duty to make certain that all those who fight in such a way get exactly what they wanted from the beginning, death. First and foremost, any Citizen who works in this fashion would be tried for treason and if convicted be executed shortly after with no prospect for retrial. Any one that is not a citizen would be turned over to the military for a tribunal trial and if convicted would again be executed. They would not get second chances to attack our citizens.
Yeah, it sucks that we would have to be this brutal, and it is not a civilized thing to do, but to do otherwise would quite simply be to allow our civilization to be destroyed by nothing more than its own civility. How many successful attacks do you think it would take to bring America to its knees? The 9/11 attacks alone are pushing multiple trillions of damages. The next attacks could be a bunch of smaller ones that are in the hundreds of billions of dollars each, as transportation and tourist industries bleed out. A chemical attack in a major city or several would be as bad as, if not worse than 9/11, as families try to flee prime target high density urban centers for fear of their loved ones being the next target. That does not even count in nuclear attacks, now that we have proven that we will not stop Iran or North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons.
So, how far should we push the envelope on human rights for those who see no value in American life? I would say that we should push the envelope to the point of making it as close to impossible for them to attack us as is possible. That means finding out exactly how many other extremists this person knows about, who they are, where they are, and if they have any plans. Then we go get those people and do the same to them. In the mean time, we lock our borders to only allow those who we can say have no ties to Islamic extremists into the country. We should also have a 0 tolerance on visa holders and even naturalized citizens who speak out in support of terrorist acts and revoke their privilege to live in the greatest nation in the world.
In the end, American citizens are American Citizens, people who are not American citizens who come to our country to do this country harm deserve not one bit of protection from our constitution. They deserve every bit of brutality that any American can muster to get information that can protect us from their allies.
We hung nazi officials for waterboarding and the other "enhanced interrogation" tactics.
If my fellow Americans decide they can do whatever they want to whoever they want without trial or accountability in order to feel safe, I consider them as much a threat as the terrorists, and I will no longer care about them. Never in my name.
These are acts of war committed by an enemy made more, not less, implacable by the fact that it is a religious war, however unpalatable, unacceptable, or downright nauseating that may be to Americans raised since birth on a steady diet of unthinking acceptance of everything up to child molestation- and unthinking tolerance of groups such as NAMBLA who try to mainstream even that.
These people want to kill my children. I take exception to that.
The term of art most frequently used to describe them- illegal enemy combatants- does not go far enough. Nidal Hassan is a traitor, pure and simple. This latest gomer and the rest of his ilk, hell, I don't know what designation carries the most legal opprobrium. Spy? Saboteur?
The old rules do not apply, in my opinion (and I mean the moral ones; there is no legal justification for the Geneva Convention, etc). We need new laws, perhaps, to cover the situation, but the old rules, mores and laws clearly are of limited utility.
These people want to kill my children; and I DO NOT CARE what means are used to stop them, or how many of them die in the process.
Terrorist need to be turned over to the Army and taken to whatever nation they fear the most.
Eric Holder is as dangerous to this country as any terrorist. Does anyone trust him? I sure don't. In fact he and Janet Incompetano pose more danger to everyday Americans than any terrorist.
This is not clearly a civil/domestic/criminal issue. This is a military strike against civilians by an enemy combatant that was not wearing a uniform. I agree that the FBI should investigate what occurred in the United States, but the combatant should be moved to Gitmo for additional interrogation to be conducted by the CIA and military reference his connections overseas. If it is decided to prosecute him, the FBI can assist with the prosecution at a military tribunal.
This guy should be in GITMO, not a jail. He should not be facing a judge in the Eastern District of Michigan. He should be in interrogation.
"We hung nazi officials for waterboarding and the other "enhanced interrogation" tactics."
Did we? Waterboarding? Really? I know we did so for war atrocities, such as, say the holocaust, so could you give me one instance where it was done for something less than the murder of prisoners of war? The difference here of course is the following, and it is something that you do not understand, our soldiers were acting as legal enemy combatants against the Nazis, the people we are using enhanced interrogation techniques against are acting as illegal enemy combatants that are not privileged to be given the same rights as someone who fights for a known responsible entity, such as a country that can be held accountable for their actions.
The rules of war are made to keep civilian populations safe and secure from the actions of war. Attacks directed against civilian targets are considered war crimes, not just simple crimes. By treating terrorists as though they are civilians entitled to civilian interrogation techniques makes it more likely that more civilians will be the targets of future attacks. By giving terrorists as though they are simple enemy troops also ensures that more civilians will be the targets of future attacks. The solution is not to be made on our end of the battlefield, it is to happen on the terrorist side of the battlefield, when they decide to act as enemy combatants that follow the rules of war, then they should be entitled to an earned treatment as such.