|
|||||||||
Posted May 20, 2002
Griping
I would like to know how in the world Mr. John Henderson knows that there are "only two Americans in custody because of 9/11"? Is he privy to information which the rest of us do not have? No one -- that is zero people -- other than the guards, are allowed to see those being detained. In Mr. Henderson's mind I guess the word of John Ashcroft is something we can accept blindly without question. After all, isn't it Mr. Ashcroft who said we shouldn't be so concerned about personal liberties when the security of the nation is at stake? Just leave everything in Mr. Ashcroft's hands and we can all feel "safe."
Mr. Henderson asks us to "face 'facts'." One of these "facts" is that Mr. Ashcroft is not concerned about "rounding up illegals." Perhaps so since he is so busy rounding up legals. Another of Mr. Henderson's "facts": "the pogroms predicted by liberals and libertarians such as Raimondo did not happen. Americans are just not like that." Gee, that's baffling. I thought Franklin Roosevelt was an American when he detained thousands of Americans in internment camps after he had initiated WWII for America by keeping Pearl Harbor undefended even though he knew that Japanese aircraft were on their way to bomb American installations. And I thought the ATF and FBI agents who were busy incinerating the men women and children of Waco, and Mr. Clinton and Ms Reno who ordered the slaughter, were Americans. And the pilots who flew the missions over Kosovo, as well as over Afghanistan; were they not Americans who snuffed out the lives of some 5,000 civilians? And I suppose Harry Truman was not an American, since no American would personally order the nuclear eradication of 100,000+ human beings, would he?
One of the greatest dangers to the survival of liberty and freedom in our country is the unstated notion exhibited by Mr. Henderson in his letter that "it can't happen here." Americans are no different than any other peoples in the sense that we all are fallen people who have the nature of sin and love of power in them. The difference here is that up until recently we have had a system whereby the exercise of absolute power is mostly held in check by we the people exercising our rights and responsibilities. But if our guard is let down by entrusting the Federal government with more and more power over our lives we can kiss our freedom and liberty good bye
And to all those "brave" writers out there who sign their name and then imply that those of us who use initials are nothing but cowards: We happen to value our -- and our family's -- privacy. We also are in very good company with Centinel, Brutus, Cato, Publius, etc. So stop your griping and quit insisting on my name, rank, and serial number.
Pauline Theology
[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of May 17, "Israel's Taliban":]
As a Christian myself, it is my opinion that if Christians were consistently Pauline in their theology, they would not be arguing for a "Greater Israel" for the Jews. Paul's understanding of Genesis 15:18 (and of the other "seed" promises in Genesis) can be found in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. He understands the promises in Genesis to be referring to Jesus Christ and those who belong to Him by faith. Those who are "of the Law" (i.e., Jews) but are not "of the faith" (i.e., believers in Jesus) are excluded from the promises.
Furthermore, Paul does not advocate that Christians conquer the world by the sword and thereby "inherit" it. Instead, he advocates praying for all in authority so that people can live quiet and peaceful lives (1 Timothy 2:2). It will be at the Second Coming when Christians receive their inheritance, not before (Ephesians 1:14).
Thus, I doubt very much that Paul would agree with the fundamentalists Justin refers to.
~ Andy Monro, Sunland, California
Shame
I'm a frequent visitor of your site for quite some time. I thank you for being there; I have read and greatly appreciate all the articles written by Mrs. Stella Jatras. From her first article "Open letter to General Michael Short" to her most recent one "Behind the Enemy Lines" Mrs. Jatras is exposing with facts the great injustice done to the unfortunate Serbian people. Mrs. Jatras, who I understand is not of Serbian descent, is to be commended for her tireless effort and her bravery to call things by their name.
Shame on us for what we've done to the Serbs.
~ Dimitri K., Rochester, New York
Northern Ireland
[Regarding 'Peace of Paper' by 'Emmanuel Goldstein', November 3, 1999:]
... ['Emmanuel Goldstein'] ... never mentions that the reason why the British Army was originally sent into Northern Ireland some 20+ years ago was actually to protect the Catholics from the Protestants under such rabble-rousers as Ian Paisley and David Trimble.
The IRA did not make a major appearance until the Protestants turned the Army to their side and started forcing raids into catholic homes looking for nonexistent weapons. This forced the Catholics to arm themselves in order to defend themselves not only from the criminally biased RUC and the Protestant militias but also now from the British army itself, their ex-protectors. The British incited the war in the 1200s that caused Strongbow to be requested to come in and aid a petty kingling against some of his neighbors. They came, then never left. Divide and conquer – the rule of the British Colonial Empire. What about the Penal Codes that forbid a Catholic to own a horse, or to be taught in a school, or to worship in his faith, or to even own land? He never mentions these either.
He is distinctively biased, and I resent the implications that he makes that the "poor" Protestants are to be pitied. This all they have brought down on their heads by over 800 years of systematic oppression of the Catholics as a whole in Ireland. Get your facts straight! During the Potato Blight of 1845-1849, the British landlords continued to ship to England and elsewhere edible goods such as wheat, beef, pork, mutton, corn, and other foodstuffs that could have been used at home to provide for the starving Irish.
...The British and the Scots that populated Northern Ireland and for so long who were the landlords (absentee) in what is now the Republic of Ireland (where the Protestant churches, The Church of Ireland -- Anglican -- included, still exist and in some cases thrive (unlike what the article says) still seem to think that the only good Irish Catholic is a dead one.
Rules
I remember during the Iran/Contra scandal that the Israelis were deeply involved in helping the American National Security apparatus with a lot of their dirty dealings. Blatant transgression of international and US law was easily accomplished by contracting this work out to our allies. I was hoping you could explore the idea that since our government does not feel constrained by these "rules" any longer, it might not "need" the Israelis as much now.
Smokescreen
Regarding the latest news stories that Bush knew the WTC attack was coming:
The real message here is a smokescreen to throw the American public off track, so that they will continue to assume 'facts' not in evidence.
The stories say that ''Bush Was Warned bin Laden Wanted to Hijack Planes."
This statement and similar ones that are designed to 'prove without a doubt' the 911-WTC attack was done by Muslims, have been continually and systematically shoved down the throats of the American public. It started a couple of hours after the WTC-911 and it continues until now. Maybe this 'Bush Knew' thing is a form of additional 'damage control' so that the public does not comprehend the reality of the identity of the real perpetrators of 911, i.e. agencies from Israel and US elite.
After all Bush Knowing is a lot more acceptable to the American public than 'Bush Doing'. The bad guys are afraid that possibly more real evidence is about to be exposed and or that the existing evidence is too accessible to the US public i.e. the public might start believing that the real perpetrators are from Israel and the US.
Green Light
In his piece entitled, "My Team Should Have Investigated Jenin," [Washington Post, May 12] posted at Antiwar.com, William L. Nash, regardless of his being the director of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, is wrong in attempting to place the armed Palestinians of Jenin in the same dock with the IDF at Jenin in regards to possible war crimes.
In his peculiarly emotional lament that he wasn't allowed into Jenin to conduct the U.N. probe of the IDF incursion, Nash, by his own writing, demonstrates that he should not be probing anything.
[....]
Showing his expertise as an honest broker, he laughably states that, "...most importantly, these concerns about war crimes apply to both the armed Palestinians and the Israeli forces."
Really? It is my understanding that only states which have signed the various treaties on war crimes can be rightfully held in violation of such treaties and then only after the most serious investigation into the events and a formal legal process aimed at determining the facts.
This obviously does not include the Palestinian militants of Jenin who are first stateless, second are an occupied resistance, and third are engaging in defensive guerilla warfare. This hardly makes them answerable to Nash's war crimes charge on any level.
Nash also says, "For the Palestinians, the indications of violations include their placing armed forces and facilities within densely populated areas."
Where on earth else would armed civilians engage with military forces who are invading their densely populated areas? Since when does deafening against territorial incursion have the possibility of being a war crime in itself?
[....]
It is clear, William Nash shows himself to be profoundly incapable of conducting an investigation into the events at Jenin or for that matter upholding the the laws of the Geneva Convention.
He is an embarrassment to the USA and with his apparent incompetence, merely gives unfit leaders like Sharon a perpetual green light to carry out collective punishment and brutal reprisals against the Palestinians. Or, perhaps that was the intent of his writing.
~ H. Fowler, California