Comments on: The Shadow of the Torturer

By: Sami

Sami — Fri, 07 May 2004 13:51:57 +0000

…wannabe terrorists “Wannabe” terrorists, Empress? Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jemaah Islamiyah? I’m sure the relatives of the thousands of people who died at their blood-soaked hands (many of them Muslims themselves) will be comforted to know that the murderers of their loved ones are just “wannabe” terrorists. I wonder what you would consider “genuine” terrorists? Oh, let me guess, people like myself (btw, I spent 14 years in Muslim religious schools) who point out that the emperor has no clothes.

By: The Empress

The Empress — Fri, 07 May 2004 12:19:16 +0000

Sami your comment bears the signs of someone who has no knowledge of Islam, a quarter of the world’s population are Muslim, you named a bunch of wannabe terrorists who I’m pretty sure have more Muslim enemies than followers. I don’t care if you’re Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, the bottom line is you talk crap.

By: bliffle

bliffle — Wed, 05 May 2004 22:52:07 +0000

It’s not surprising to me that some kid from the woods sees fit to persecute POWs. After all, he probably considers it pre-approved by the Commander-in-chief, GW Bush. And I think an enormous number of US citizens agree with the kid. Why? Because this is the example that GWB sets. Right at this moment, Ted Sorensen, GWBs lawyer, is arguing before the Supreme Court that GWB has the right to declare anyone, even a US citizen, an “enemy combatant” and thereby imprison him without warrant, without Habeus Corpus and for an indefinite time period. Oh yes, and without recourse to legal counsel or any form of appeal. And they are doing this with a straight face and no sense of irony. And the US citizenry seem content for things to be so! This is what is amazing to me: that there is not a widespread national uprising against this de facto abolition of the Bill Of Rights, for such it is. This president has arrogated to himself unlimited power to do as HE pleases. Instead of congressional law, as specified in the US COnstitution (an inconvenient document, I suppose, to the Tories who prefer to rule by Divine Right of Kings) we have Presidential Edict, based on a far-ranging notion of Executive Privilege (first extended so by Nixon to attempt coverup of Watergate), which is enthusiastically endorsed by the 9 supremes, 7 of whom were appointed by the same political party. What we have here is a palace coup. The US government has been taken over by a radical clique that governs without reference to any law other than their own whims. They don’t enforce the laws passed by congress, they do what they want, then seek flimsy rationalization in executive orders. And so, in the absence of Constitutional constraint, the worst instincts of men abroad are unleashed. Serving, I’m sure they believe, the wishes of The King. The ends, as GWB demonstrates daily, justify the means. After all, it is the Bill Of Rights that protects individuals from the excesses of the government. Absent that, we are all serfs. What astonishes me is the enthusiasm with which these abrogations are embraced by such a large part of the population. I suppose they’re anxious to get back to the next episode of “Friends” and just wish that a Regal King can end all this distracting political noise so they can enjoy TV. Wouldn’t it have been better if we conservatives had chosen John McCain instead? A man who knows war and deprivation of rights first hand. Instead of an inexperienced learner president with a bad set of training wheels. B

By: sean

sean — Wed, 05 May 2004 16:51:53 +0000

Interesting site. Kant would be proud.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 05 May 2004 16:00:13 +0000

Hy, Jhn sbll pnt t sngle l. mprss, yr clm tht hmn lf s scrd n slm md m lgh t ld. Y tll tht t th prgnnt mthr nd hr fr yng dghtrs wh wr jst mrdrd t cls rng n srl by mslms. r hw bt tht spntns mss rgsm by plstnns n 9/11. r th fct tht vry thr kd n pkstn brn n th lst tw yrs s nmd sm. r th mrdrs f schl tchrs n Thlnd r th bhdng f hstgs n th Phlpns r th slghtr f chrstn vllgs n th Sdn? Ths dn’t sm t mk hdlns n l Jzr. wndr why. s sprsttns g, slm s th wrst n my pnn.

By: Sami

Sami — Wed, 05 May 2004 15:54:08 +0000

Make no mistake, killing, torturing and oppressing has no place in Islam and will be condemned by Muslims regardless of who the victims are. Yeah, right (sound of coughing as coffee gets inhaled instead of swallowed). Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jemaah Islamiyah, Ansar al Islam… ah, never mind! P.S. In case you’re wondering, Empress, I was born Muslim. I know all the stock “justifications”.

By: The Empress

The Empress — Wed, 05 May 2004 12:54:34 +0000

S.A Smith, you cant hear the out cry fom muslims because all you hear is one side of the argument, i.e what the media put out in front of you, i.e open your f***ing eyes and ears, you wont be able to do any of that though without opening your heart and mind first.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Wed, 05 May 2004 04:24:26 +0000

When reasoning escapes you, that’s a tough break. Lie again here and I’ll point it out, though. You can do it elsewhere no problem.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 05 May 2004 00:09:26 +0000

John, you really had me going there. I thought you were serious.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Tue, 04 May 2004 23:56:29 +0000

“John, you don’t know a thing about me.” I know you showed contempt for my six family members. I know you’ve never set eyes on “the troops”, because it can’t be done. I know that to deny my six family members, with their decades of service, the right to their own existence, in which they have never shopped at Wal-Mart, is contempt for them and for reality, a contempt you are welcome to. As for the merits of shopping at Wal-Mart, that is your concern. But your stereotype was patently false, and I point out falsehoods. Beyond that (my subject), no indeed, I have little interest in who you are. But don’t let that stop you.

By: S.A. Smith

S.A. Smith — Tue, 04 May 2004 23:01:21 +0000

Rea, yeah, got it. That’s been explained again and again. It’s the argument. But it is no more persuasive than saying that you are more distressed than, say, having a brother who’s a having a laugh at the expense of Iraqi POW’s than a brother who’s lying dead with a bullet in his skull. For some it’s all academic, I guess. It’s a question of degree. And while I’m on the subject: Does anyone know what the hell’s happening in the Sudan right now? And for the peace-loving muslim above, where’s the outcry in the muslim world over that, because I’m not hearing it.

By: rea

rea — Tue, 04 May 2004 21:56:51 +0000

“Why does there seem to be less outrage on the Left when US POW’s are found bound with bullet holes through their heads or when Jessica Lynch is sodomized than when Iraqis POW’s are photographed naked and threatened with rape?” Because while being a crime victim is an honorable tragedy, being a criminal is a disgrace. And because our troops are our agents, and we are therefore responsble to control their actions, while the actions of our enemies are beyond our control.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 04 May 2004 20:36:32 +0000

John, you don’t know a thing about me. I’m a teacher on a US naval air base in Central California. Everyone I know is in the military or has some connection to it; and I know many people who are still in Iraq. Moreover, my family has a history of service, including my father and all of his four brothers who served in every war since WW II. I got involved in this thread when I pointed out that there seemed to be a more gut-level reaction among people on the Left to the photos of US soldiers humiliating Iraqis than photos of US soldiers bound with bullets through their heads. By the way, when I say “Left” I don’t mean mainstream liberals like myself; I mean the ideological leftists who abound on the net like rats in a sewer. And apparently you think there is no greater insult than to suggest that someone shops at Wal-Mart. Curious.

By: amoeba

amoeba — Tue, 04 May 2004 16:30:55 +0000

I clearly remember statements made by U.S. officials during the Afghanistan war that disparaged the Geneva Conventions. Certainly the conservative media in the U.S. has incessently claimed that the great United States should not be held back by the same agreements that bind lesser countries . And the adminsitration has been openly contemptous of international treaties. In this context, it seems appropriate for me to place some of the blame for the disgusting behaviour of American soldiers on the political leadership. By constantly disparaging international norms of behavour, and by claiming that they actually hinder America’s holy fight against terrorism, they helped create the conditions in which the events at Abu Ghraib were able to take place.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Tue, 04 May 2004 15:16:53 +0000

Sean, as opposed to an abstract entity called “the troops” which you proclaim your allegiance to and have never set eyes on, you are holding six quite literal US military personnel in contempt. Their names are Henry, Frances, Robert, John, Joan, and Mark. One leaves for Iraq this summer. Enjoy your abstractions, they look great on your wall.