[PLUG-TALK] Chirac's shocker... Iraq.

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, alex wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-12-21 at 17:57, Chuck Mize wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-12-21 at 16:34, alex wrote:

Those are the references.

> I believe that the Gov't IS taking care of the National Defense by
> fighting the war against terrorism.

Again, this is very much the Microsoft view.  The only security is the
complete annihilation of any competition, real or ideological.

> Would you rather that we have terrorist attacks on a regular basis like
> they have in say, Israel?

Well, if you're a brutal, hateful bunch of warmongers, you're going to
have people trying to lash out against your tyranny.

> I remember Clinton giving Arafat 90% of what he wanted and the Israeli's
> got nothing in return except a little security. What happened but Arafat
> WALKED AWAY from the table and sent the homicide bombers back to kill
> more civilian Jews.

It's so easy to throw out that "90% of what he wanted" stuff without any
idea of context or weight.  The one thing that was not on the table for
negotiation with the Palestinians was the Right of Return.  This is was
just one of maybe 15 items the PLO said were terms of peace, but it is by
far the most important to the Palestinians.

One analogy might be offering someone some nice cycling shoes and a new
saddle and helmet and maybe a bell and being surprised when they have no
use for those things since you didn't bring the bicycle to the
negotiations.  It may be 80% of what they wanted, but it's all just
dressing without the entree.

> > What about when Reagan and Bush I sold chemical and biological weapons
> > to Saddam and funded the Taliban in Afghanistan. Were those the right
> > things for the right reasons?
>
> Oh, you mean the CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS?

Uh, chemical weapons as well... I don't know anything about biological
weapons.

But you'll also find that Charles Glass (then of ABC News) located
biological weapons facilities (using information from defected Iraqi
officials in London and French commercial sattelites) and brought the
proof to the public on ABC television.  The Pentagon claimed that this was
nonsense and the story died.  These are the same facilities used to
justify war in 2003.

> As for Afghanistan, we were assisting(with conventional weapons) the
> Afghans in the defense of their country from an invading Soviet army.

This was a trumped-up threat in order to occupy the Soviets and cause a
big political headache and money-sink for Moscow.  The major players in
this scam have come forward bragging about it now.

This happens time and again and people just ignore the signs when it's
happening again.  In twenty years, we'll all be reading Wolfowitz' memoirs
and he'll be bragging about duping the public into a Saddam threat in
order to build permanent military bases in the arab Middle East.

> > So you are condoning the actions of an administration that has close
> > personal ties to the bin Laden family and the Saudi royal family? Does
> > it make one an elitist to be outraged that the current administration
> > lied to the American people to justify war-mongering?
>
> Close personal ties??? Well, another person that has a dream!

There's nothing dreamy about it.

Salem bin Laden (Osama's older brother) and George W. Bush were founders
of the Arbusto Energy oil company in the late 70s.  This was about the
time George H. W. Bush was head of the CIA and they were training Osama
and his buddies to attack to Soviets.

Know the facts before your knee jerks.

> But really, I surely don't feel that I was lied to for the purpose of
> war-mongering.

Well, either they lied to you or they are exceptionally foolish and
gullible.  Which is it?

> I also feel that if he had nothing to hide he had nothing to lose by
> allowing the U.N. inspectors FULL and UNFETTERED access to all areas of
> his country as the U.N. requested in numerous resolutions.

Do you think the rights of privacy and sovereignty are "nothing"?  Only
criminals fight for their rights to privacy and security?

If that were true, there would be no need for a Fourth or Fifth amendment
to the Constitution.

Suspicion requires no evidence and is not a good enough reason to violate
people's rights.

> Gee, our favorite dictator might even still been in power if only he had
> let the weapons inspectors do their job.(sniff sniff)

And please, show us ANY evidence that Saddam Husseign didn't allow the UN
inspectors access to all of the areas specifically requested by the UN
inspectors.  Yes, the US was making strange demands outside the UN mandate
(like searching people's homes), but those weren't official requests from
the UN.

I'll recommend Scott Ritter's book again.

> Let me guess you're still going on about how the Patriot Act has taken
> away your personal freedoms.

Well, it's still in effect.

> Hell, our own state and local gov't has done more in that direction than
> the Patriot Act has. Ever tried to cut a tree on your own property that
> YOU paid for with YOUR money? AH AH! That's a NO NO!!! How about build
> something on that same property? OH NO!!!! You can't do that
> either(unless you want to pay thousands in fees).

There is no historical legal precedent for a right to modify realty at
your whim.

Land use has always been the exclusive rubrick of the state.  There is no
standing right being violated by legislating land use.

> The only thing that the Patriot Act did was put existing laws all in one
> place.

That's a lie.  I don't know who told it to you, but they were either
purposely misleading you or didn't know what they were talking about.

The Act doesn't put ANYTHING "in one place".  Primarily, the act is a list
of amendments to other parts of the US Code (often in very obscure
language that requires plenty of cross-referencing to make any sense) and
a handful of definitions.

Here's a quick link to the full text of the Act:
<URL: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html >

> To get a search warrant you still need to go to a Federal Judge and tell
> them why you want it.

That's right.  But many things no longer require warrants.

> Randomly tapping phones is still not permitted without a warrant.

Randomly tapping phones isn't legal at all.  But the FBI can now place
taps on "enemy combatants" without warrants.  Read the act.

> They can hold you, just like they could before, if you are considered a
> material witness AND a flight risk.(Mike Hawash is a prime example of
> this)

There are much better examples.

Much of the Act, for example, is concerned with amending investigations of
terrorism to apply to ANY information retrieval regarding "non-United
States persons".  In other words, we no longer guarantee the rights of
people, only citizens.  This changes the entire tone of the Bill of Rights
to a Bill of Privileges... it no longer applies to people not officially
recognized as having rights by the government.

> Really! Please tell me what personal freedoms have you lost? I haven't
> lost any.

You've lost the right to expect that your telecommunications providers
will not give personal credit and bank account information (including
acocunt numbers) to anyone.  That's just a simple one.

> It's really hard to make up the millions and billions in debt that all
> three countries are being asked to forgive Iraq of.

Well, then those private banking institutions shouldn't have accepted the
risk of the loan if the entity to whom the loan was made might cease to
exist.

> Well, they were denied access to numerous sites that were suspected of
> being facilities for the production of WMDs.

This simply didn't happen.

> Which only brings us back to the question of what was Saddam hiding?

Would you allow the police to search your entire home if they had a
warrant to search your basement?  Would it be right if they considered you
a criminal for protecting your privacy?

> The U.N. couldn't find it's kester with both hands at high noon in the
> Sahara Desert in the middle of July. But of course we need only look at
> the ang up job they've done in Veitnam, Sudan, Afghanistan, and the list
> goes on and on. You scream about the corruption in this country but
> ignore the fact that right now Libya is in charge of policing human
> rights violations! I guess that they would be experts in that area?

Don't confuse the delegate from Libya for Libya as a historical entity.
That would be really dumb.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org