In related themes

[unixronin]

jordan179 outs Amnesty International for supporting jihad.  All you have to do is claim, however unsupportably, that it's "in self defense", and Amnesty International will have no problem with it whatsoever, and will actually suspend any of its own personnel who have a problem with Amnesty International endorsing jihad.  And as pointed out in that thread, Islam has been making war on other peoples "for its own defense" since at least about the eighth century AD.

And, in another case where it's all about definitions, Strategic Forecasting points out that Mexico's having lost control of its northern states to drug cartels isn't necessarily a problem, for Mexico, if you look at it the right way.  Looked at from the perspective that drug smuggling into the US is America's problem, drug smuggling across the Mexican border brings Mexico forty billion dollars of hard (well ... OK, harder) foreign currency a year.  About thirty two billion dollars of this is profit, which would require about a third of a trillion dollars in conventional business to produce.  In other words, the drug trade pumps as much new money into the Mexican economy as does roughly a third of Mexico's GDP.  As has been pointed out before, it is not in Mexico's economic interest to stem the flow of illegal drugs from Mexico into the US, any more than it's in Mexico's interest to stem the flow of illegal immigrants.

Of course, to be fair, this knife — like many others — cuts both ways.  There are things the US could do fix the problem from the US side; principally, taking the profit out of smuggling through drug legalization.  But the US cannot bring itself to do that, and can't figure out how to reduce the demand for drugs while keeping them illegal.  So, short of massive military action against Mexico, here we stand.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

But the US cannot bring itself to do that, and can't figure out how to reduce the demand for drugs while keeping them illegal. So, short of massive military action against Mexico, here we stand.

IMO, the next decades may see Mexico falling to a narcoterrorist regime, and America conquering and annexing Mexico in response to that regime's escalating provocations across the border.

Have a care of sources

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I don't know the rights and wrongs of the charges against Amnesty but I don't trust your source. The Investigative Project is run by one Steven Emerson, who has made a career of peddling anti-Islamic rumors to the radical right. He was dinged on this all the way back in 1999 (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1443) and of course has had a field day since 9/11. Also, of course, people imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay are at most alleged members of al-Qaeda--there have been no fair trials. Since torture has been used there, even the confessions of inmates are in question.

If you want to read the Times of London's article on Gita Sahgal, who is the source of the charges, it is here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7026143.ece). There's a case there, I think. Unfortunately, the Times is a conservative newspaper and likely to be sympathetic to Sahgal's views for reasons other than their merits. Salman Rushdie has spoken in Sahgal's defense, which I credit more. Discussion and response in The Guardian (http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=Gita+Sahgal+&year=2010&sitesearch-radio=guardian&go-guardian=Search), which is the more left of the major British papers. Let's not blast the group before the case against them has been more thoroughly mooted. Amnesty has many enemies among authoritarians and war criminals, and it is easy to expand minor charges to full-blown scandals in the media without ever actually proving anything. Especially, the UK elites are now feeling the heat for the war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and grasping at straws.

Re: Have a care of sources

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The vast majority of those in Guantanamo Bay are Al Qaeda or Taliban members, or Al Qaeda or Taliban sympathizers -- and given the noxious foulness of Al Qaeda's and the Taliban's actions, being even an "Al Qaeda sympathizer" or a "Taliban sympathizer" should be sufficient to damn one forever to far less luxurious confinement than America provides its foes. I believe this because I take human rights seriously -- and am horrified by the atrocities that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are committed.

Evidently, Amnesty International takes human rights a bit less seriously than do I.

Re: Have a care of sources

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

"The vast majority of those in Guantanamo Bay are Al Qaeda or Taliban members, or Al Qaeda or Taliban sympathizers"

Or perhaps people whose neighbors informed on them for the bounties.

I've been opposed to the Taliban since before it was fashionable. I knew of al-Qaeda for a long time. You say you take human rights seriously. So do I. And because I do, I won't convict anyone on rumors. I know that there is almost no way of knowing who in Guantanamo is guilty of what at all--most of the reliable evidence has been destroyed by war, time, torture, and the malleability of memory and what remains, if anything, has yet to be brought forward for fair trials. The evidence that any Amnesty officials are al-Qaeda or Taliban sympathizers is still being debated. So far the claims have not been proven, or even argued extensively: one article in the Times of London, based on one person's opinions, is not proof. At best it's a reason to investigate. Meantime, I know that Amnesty has a long clean record and many enemies among those who hate human rights. If there is more and more substantial evidence, bring it forward! I will listen. But let us not slam them for rumors.

Timely Article on Guantonamo Prisoners

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

This (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece?) Times of London article is timely:

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, according to a new document obtained by The Times.

The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, [...]

Re: Timely Article on Guantonamo Prisoners

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, that fails to surprise me. More and more, I find myself thinking that our government has become one of the world's leading enemies of freedom and democracy.

Neither does it help when President Obama once again perpetuates a Bush administration policy and openly declares that it's OK for the US to assassinate US citizens without trial (see articles here (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/08/the_lwot_us_confirms_awlaki_on_cia_hit_list_gitmo_military_trial_begins) and here (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations), among others) as long as "strong evidence exists". (Cue the witch scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "Did you dress her up like this?" "No!" "No!" "No!" "No." "Well... Yeah. A bit.") I can't argue that the guy's any friend of ours, but fer crissakes, at least go through the motions of pretending to follow due process.

Re: Timely Article on Guantonamo Prisoners

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Unh-hunh. I think this is the authoritarian interregnum (http://adviceunasked.blogspot.com/2010/04/sore-losers.html), which began with Bush II, and is being maintained by Obama. Obama, despite the right's fears, and the left's hopes, is apparently a conservative, or at least feels that conservative policies are best at this time. I prefer sane conservative to insane radical right. But I would rather have other choices.

Re: Timely Article on Guantonamo Prisoners

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I don't agree. He's maintaining Bush policies that suit him while going balls-to-the-wall on the big-government entitlement agenda. Bush was for the most part conservative only socially, and Obama acts conservative only when it suits him.

I also think you're ignoring significant amounts of violence from the Left. This is not Left vs. Right. It's the population vs. the political machines.

Re: Timely Article on Guantonamo Prisoners

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Entitlements? You mean the health insurance plan? It's a conservative plan--the left's opinion of it ranges from "fix it later" to "wish it hadn't passed." It's very similar to the Republican 1994 counter-proposal to the Clinton plan, and also the Massachusetts plan, due to Republican governor Mitt Romney. Or do you mean the bank bailout? That was also a conservative plan. If it had been left-wing we'd have seen much more regulation and support for small business, homeowners, and so on. Conservatives are for big government, when it benefits big business (as in the health insurance plan and the bank bailout) or when it involves war (as in Iraq.) The political machine is right wing: there is nothing like a strong left in the Federal government. The left pulled out all the stops for the public option and lost. Now they won't even challenge the coal and oil industry on CO2 regulation.

The US radical left is much more on the peaceful anarchist side than the violent statist side. The most prominent US radical left figure is Chomsky, who is an anarchist and opposed to violence except in defense--has been for decades. Chomsky is old, and I do not think there is any young US leftist of comparable stature. Who on the left has threatened serious anti-government violence since 1975? On the other hand, on the right we have figures like Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, Palin, and Boehner.

Of recent anti-government violence on the right we have Scott Roeder, murderer of Dr. Tiller, Gregory Giusti who threatened Speaker Pelosi, Charles Alan Wilson who threatened Senator Patty Murray, and Larry North who planted 36 IEDs in Texas mailboxes. There were the Hutaree, and Stupak claims to have been threatened from the right, because he abandoned his anti-abortion position for Senator Nelson's slightly less anti-abortion position. Who on the left is comparable or has comparable numbers?

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Let's see, what was that radioactive isotope MacArthur was gonna spread along the Korean/Chinese border . . .

[wyrdling.livejournal.com]

ugh. this makes me sick. talk about AI compromising their own principles...
thank you for pointing it out.

and, well, if CA gets broke enough, we might see drug legalization. i'm hoping, at least

[polaris93.livejournal.com]

The "in their own defense" jazz seems to be the liberals' latest ineffective attempt at "rebutting" reasoned arguments for defending this country against Islamists and other terrorists. Clear evidence they're brain-damaged.

eh. generalizing a little here?

[wyrdling.livejournal.com]

i'm (generally) liberal and a long term AI member, and find this turn of the leaf appalling. while i don't think we ought to behave monstrously to monsters, there is no reason not to recognize what they are and defend ourselves effectively against them. which is only to point out that there's no monolithic "liberal left" any more than there's a monolithic "conservative right."
more to the point, i think, calling someone brain damaged doesn't seem an effective debate tactic if the goal is communication.

Re: eh. generalizing a little here?

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

At bottom there's only one report (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7026143.ece), from a woman named Gita Sahgal, in the voice-of-the-establishment Times of London, and it's not clear how accurate it is. So don't give up on Amnesty quite yet.

Re: eh. generalizing a little here?

[wyrdling.livejournal.com]

true enough. given that they refused to focus at all on US internal affairs until (at least) the late nineties they probably don't have all the kinks ironed out... but i expect more from them. to not let politics get in the way of the mission. we'll see.

Re: eh. generalizing a little here?

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I was a member back in the 1980s, and I'm pretty sure I recall attention given to US affairs back when. You sure about that?

Re: eh. generalizing a little here?

[wyrdling.livejournal.com]

when i was writing letters in high school in the early nineties one of my classmates specifically asked if they addressed any internal US issues and the answer was no. it could have been that they were misinformed.

Re: eh. generalizing a little here?

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it was just his local group. Or perhaps my memory is wrong. It would take some work to find out.