Uechi-Ryu.com

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:34 am**

Should anyone be interested in following the great debate over here...

Lemme start out by saying that the US has lead the world in efforts to make their military more precise and minimize the numbers of civilian casualties--and not for free, either. We're setting up the first good chance the Iraqi people have had at self government, and we're taking a lot of casualties ourselves in doing it. The people we were fighting in Iraq (SH) and afghanistan (taliban) had track records of hard core evil and had no business reigning over those peoples... the people we are fighting (some SH buddies and a lot of AQ wackos) espouse a violent, cruel, stone age, intolerant worldview that simply isn't capable of coexisting peacefully with anything but other wackos. It's a mindset capable of producing nothing positive unless you count fanaticism and repression in that column.

What I'm saying is that while I have criticims of the US, it's pretty clear who're the good guys and the bad guys. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, let's frame it as between those who think america is the good enough / good as they can be guys and those who think we could be the better than we are now guys or the great guys. And not give the perception this is an America bash. But as for me, my issues with Bush Co and their approach to government are well enough delineated already.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:31 pm**

This thread is now officially a continuation of the following thread on my forum.

Did Bush / Blair invent the cause for war?

- Bill

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:45 pm**

chewy wrote: I am trying to point out that what people appear to be implying (that SH was "in bed" or even "in control" of the terrorists) simply isn't the case.

You have to make the case before making the declaration, chewy. Right now, it's easier for me to refute your case than it is to make a positive one, so I think it's a stretch to make such a statement.

As an example... As we keep telling you, Saddam Hussein gave money to the families of homicide (a.k.a. suicide) bombers in Israel. I have to agree with cxt on the "parsing" issue; money is money and support is support. If SH wants to launder the way he passes a buck under the table to various Palestinian terrorist groups, it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, more innocent people die violent deaths BECAUSE of this flow of money.

And as we witness the further daily homicide bombers in Iraq that now are concentrated on "soft" targets (innocent Iraqi men, women, and children), we have to ask where these folks came from. Most agree that Jordanian-born al Zarqawi is the CEO of this outfit. He's the one who officially sanctioned the killing of Iraqis (Muslims et al) on his website - for the cause. Nice guy...

And most now agree that al Zarqawi set up shop in Northeastern Iraq before the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

So... No matter how you or anyone wants to characterize this, SH has a lot of explaining to do. And it's not like these are isolated incidents. SH has a record of using chemical weapons on his neighbors (the Iranians) and his own people (Kurdish Muslims). So when we flush the al qaeda scum out of Afghanistan and the scurry about the Middle East, do YOU feel comfortable with a guy like that in the neighborhood? Remember, the taboo of striking here on U.S. soil already has been broken. And SH now is appearing to show a PATTERN of finding ways for people who hate us to get what they need while making it look like he's a poor, innocent victim.

Tell that to the Iranians. Tell that to the Kuwaitis. Tell that to the Kurds, Tell that to the Shia.

Personally I'm glad we don't have to worry about even a TINY chance that we'll have to "tell that to more Americans." I can sleep at night.

chewy wrote: If you want follow this to the letter of your law that we are even more "in the wrong" than SH. After all, we funded his regime, we gave him WMDs to gas his own people and the Iranians, we get Osama $$ and training to terrorize the Soviets,... and the list goes on and on.

No doubt. If you've followed threads on Panther's forum in the past, you'll see how several of us (particularly cxt and I) have outlined all the ridiculous things the United States has done in the name of national interest. Same for the U.K. Saddam Hussein got virtually all his WMD expertise from these two countries. After the Iran hostage crisis, SH was turned into OUR sunovabich (to steal a line from Teddy Roosevelt). We quietly supported him when he killed a million Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war. And all that happend because our OLD sunuvabich (the Shah of Iran) lost favor to Khomeini and his merry mullahs. And we also supported the mujahadin when they ousted the Soviets in Afghanistan. And then we walked away from both at the end, and the chaos came back later to bite us in the arse. We were following the old Arab adage 'My enemy's enemy is my friend.'

This has been U.S. schizophrenic policy for generations. You cannot lay all that crap on GW. Love him or hate him, at least he's a predictable and principled guy. Right or wrong, he's sticking with Iraq while they are trying to build a representational government. And he's doing the same in Afghanistan along with the help of the U.N. This is the only policy in generations that makes half a wit of sense. For once, we're one of the good guys rather than supporter of despots who do dirty deeds dirt cheap in the name of U.S. interests.

Do you hear me demanding reparations and vengeance for what the Anglo Saxons did to my Irish ancestors? What MANY nationalities did to my Lithuanian ancestors? (The Soviets exterminated them by the tens of thousands in the most recent tragedy.) To hell with all that. This is a new generation, and a new set of problems. I don't live in the past. I have family to educate and business deals to conquer. I don't lay yesterday's problems on today's generation. I face today's problems with the idea that I want my sons to reap the rewards of smart solutions.

If we want to get into the past.... But no. Don't go there! This is EXACTLY the problem we face with many of these extremists who haven't gotten over the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the loss of the Crusades, etc., etc.

chewy wrote: this is just a diversion from my point, which was SH really wasn't the "supporter of terrorism" GW made him out to be.

You can start by telling that to the family of a child killed by a Hamas homicide bomber. Go ahead, chewy, be my guest. I'm sure you can make it sound good.

Not me, Jack. If some goon sends his henchmen after me, I dispatch of the henchmen and put the goon clear in my sights. Only a fool is distracted by the deliverers of death, and misses the big picture.

I fully understand that many people will not see all this with the same eyes. And that's their prerogative.

- Bill

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:47 pm**

Ian wrote: If anyone wants to continue the discussion, let's frame it as between those who think america is the good enough / good as they can be guys and those who think we could be the better than we are now guys or the great guys.

Now we're talking...

And yes, we ALWAYS can do better.

- Bill

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:54 pm**

One thing I wanted to respond to from the other thread was why "we" (I don't speak for anyone else, but am lumped in with others at times) don't talk about the atrocities of our enemies. At this point I'm basically just echoing Ian's comments, but basically my position is that there's no point in preaching to the choir. You guys (and here I'm lumping Bush/war supports together) already know what our obvious enemies are doing and why it's bad. We agree on that point, so there's nothing else to add. On the other hand, we don't agree about Bush/the war, and so it makes more sense to talk about it. I didn't respond to Ian's original post, because I had nothing significant to add to it.

In a more general sense, I debate because it seems useful (okay, and it's fun). But basically it's like this: I have come to certain conclusions based on the information I have. If someone comes to different conclusions then either one of us has extra information, or we are thinking differently about the same information. Either way, If I'm wrong about an issue I want to know it so I can have a more accurate worldview. If they're wrong, I want them to know it for the same reason. Ignorance and irrrationality are bad things (when it comes to important issues); When it works, debate helps to reduce them. And thus concludes my unneccesary spiel on debating.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:19 pm**

Valkenar wrote: If I'm wrong about an issue I want to know it so I can have a more accurate worldview. If they're wrong, I want them to know it for the same reason.

That's a noble pursuit, Justin. However when it comes to politics, it may be a futile one.

Reasonable, intelligent people can disagree about things. There can actually be 2 approaches to a problem, and we can disagree about which way to approach it because we hold different values sacred.

And when all else fails, you suk and I'm right...

- Bill

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:08 pm**

This IMO is walking the talk of doing things the right way.

Rice Pushes Egyptians
To Work on Democracy

Associated Press
June 20, 2005 9:26 a.m.

CAIRO, Egypt -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday made a case for democracy in the Muslim world, telling Egypt's conservative government leaders "the fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty."

Ms. Rice's remarks were to some 700 invited government officials, academics and other guests at the American University in Cairo. The setting is notable, because Egypt plans its first nominally multiparty elections in the fall and because the Bush administration has made no secret of its dissatisfaction with political progress and the treatment of opposition figures by the government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

"For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither," Ms. Rice said. "Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people."

She noted that President Bush, in his second inaugural address, said the U.S. wouldn't try to impose an American style of government on the unwilling and that the goal of his administration was to help others find their own voice.

"Throughout the Middle East the fear of free of choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty. It is time to abandon the excuses that are made to avoid the hard work of democracy," Ms. Rice said.

Ms. Rice took to task the governments of close U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Egypt for cracking down on dissent. In Saudi Arabia, she noted, three people are currently in jail for petitioning the government. "That should not be a crime in any country," she said.

She praised Mr. Mubarak for calling for elections but said she was concerned for the future of Egypt's reforms because of the violence that has faced "peaceful supporters of democracy."

"President Mubarak has unlocked the door for change. Now, the Egyptian government must put its faith in its own people," she said. "The Egyptian government must fulfill the promise it has made to its people, and to the entire world, by giving its citizens the freedom to choose."

Earlier Monday alongside Ms. Rice at a news conference in Sharm el Sheik, her Egyptian counterpart promised the voting will be free, fair and open. "Who would object to fair and transparent elections?" Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said. "It will be so, I assure you."

But Abdel Halim Kandil, a member of the opposition group Kifaya, said his organization was boycotting Ms. Rice's speech and visit because reformers in Egypt don't want to seek the help of a "big dictator" against a "small dictator." "We believe the U.S. administration is not making a serious effort to support reformers," he said.

Ms. Rice said she had discussed preparations for the elections with Mr. Mubarak, who surprised Washington and other Arab nations this spring when he announced his country would hold its first ever multiparty elections.

Limits on who can run and scattered violence during a preparatory referendum raised international doubt that Mr. Mubarak is serious about reform. But the Bush administration has mostly praised Mr. Mubarak, while thrashing Iran's Islamic leadership for placing somewhat similar limitations on the slate of candidates in elections this past weekend.

Ms. Rice said the Egyptian voting must include an opportunity for opposition candidates to air their messages and said it is important "that there be a sense of competition."

"I believe our Egyptian friends understand that and that they will take their responsibility seriously because people will watch what happens in Egypt," she said.

Ms. Rice also offered a brief checklist for democracy to both supporters and opponents of established governments. "They must accept the rule of law. They must reject violence. They must respect the standards of free elections. And they must peacefully accept the results," she told her audience.

She also delivered a blunt criticism of the Palestinian group Hamas, which the U.S. labels a terrorist organization but which is a growing political force across the Mideast. "For all citizens with grievances democracy can be a path to lasting justice. But the democratic system cannot function if certain groups have one foot in the realm of politics and one foot in the camp of terror," she said.

Following her speech, Ms. Rice took questions from several audience members, telling them the U.S. would abide by Egyptian law and have no contact with the Muslim Brotherhood, the banned Islamic group that is Egypt's largest opposition movement.

She also delivered a lengthy defense of U.S. actions and principles in the treatment of prisoners and the Quran.

Mr. Aboul Gheit said he told Ms. Rice the allegations of mistreatment of the Quran and abuse of prisoners by U.S. troops at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq resonated strongly in the Arab world. "I told you also that there is anger in the region and that we have to work on this anger," Mr. Aboul Gheit said.

Copyright © 2005 Associated Press

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:19 pm**

Bill Glasheen wrote: Reasonable, intelligent people can disagree about things. There can actually be 2 approaches to a problem, and we can disagree about which way to approach it because we hold different values sacred.

Absolutely, but I think that also has value. That is, to understand how, given the same set of facts, your a priori assumptions (sacred values) alter your perceptions of reality. Usually the debate doesn't quite manage to track back to that point. Vis a vis Iraq, there's at least two major questions afoot: is what we're doing effective, and is what we're doing right? The latter depends more on values, but the former is ultimately a matter question fact (though it's almost certainly not definitevly answerable by any of us).

But in some cases it can be hard to tell the difference between values and facts questions. For example, "Should we be mad that the president lied" Well first of all, there's the question of *if* he lied. That's one of fact, and for my money, he did. Next there's the priorities question of whether it's more important to have a president that will be honest with us, or one that is willing to put certain values aside (lying, torture) in the interest of maximizing our well-being (assuming his choices actually achieve that end, which, of course is another question).

So does anyone have the opinion that "Yes, he lied, but it doesn't matter?" We all know that there are many other potential reasons (which may or may not have been adequately refuted at this point) to go to war, but that only explains why it may not matter that he lied, it doesn't change whether he did or not.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:07 pm**

You are being very careful with your assumptions, and that is appreciated.

Valkenar wrote: So does anyone have the opinion that "Yes, he lied, but it doesn't matter?"

I cannot speak for others, but that's not my position.

My position is that GW went to war for many reasons, with on-the-ground, here-and-now WMDs being one of them. And he likely went to war knowing that the evidence for on-the-ground WMDs was weak, but was able to proceed in spite of this because of all the other verifiable reasons that made him want to act. And when it came out that nobody could find any of these WMDs, Bush and Blair are shrugging their shoulders.

And again... Saddam Hussein WANTED the world to believe he had them - on the right day - for one or more possible reasons. So to a certain extent, he held that card in his hand. Had he done everything that was required of him by the surrender agreement, there would be no issues. There would be verifiable evidence of their destruction. The very records that he kept and we found on all this could be used to document what went where and when. (I used to use radioactive materials for research. Trust me - you NEED to keep these kinds of records. The former Iraqi regime apparently had them in spades.)

I'm a statistics guy, Justin, and I believe cxt understands some of the same concepts. Whether or not you act is dependent on a lot of things. For example in medicine, you may elect to do something rather noxious even with a small degree of certainty that there's something bad you might actually be getting rid of. A good example is adjuvent chemotherapy after breast cancer surgery. There's a chance you don't need it because of the surgery, but the risk of being wrong (risk of there being a false negative) is too great. It's not black-and-white by any means.

That's the way I look at Iraq, Justin. The risk of us being wrong with SH creating direct or especially indirect mischief with WMDs in the present or future was great, and he gave us plenty of good reasons to go in and figure out god's truth ourselves. Remember what a few envelopes of anthrax did to our postal system, our news media, and the national psyche? And we STILL don't know where the damn stuff came from. Don't you know that there are a lot of bad guys who took note?

I shed no tears because we were wrong on that particular score - meaning just the here-and-now WMDs in Iraq. Assuming that's the case. For all we know, some of the Hussein family now in Syria took some of it with them. That's how unreliable our intel is.

CEOs and airplane pilots are trained to make decisions on imperfect information. Pilots practice flying planes (simulators) with half the instruments working. CEOs run companies that way because that's the only way to do it. Physicians make decisions to treat all the time based on imperfect information or lack of a definitive differential diagnosis.

That's why those folks get paid the big bucks. They make difficult decisions, and have to live with the consequences.

- Bill

Posted: **Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:45 pm**

Since the whole memo/reason for war topic has been rerehashed... here's an easy one--can't the USA formally, convincingly reject torture as a means in this conflict? By that I mean reread the Constitution of the united states and follow its letter and spirit, and the same for the laws mentioned in Annas's piece, including the Geneva convention--rather than decide what we want to be able to do and try to fineagle our way into justifying it. Specifically, Bush's suspension of normal prohibitions on inhuman treatment because this was a "new" kind of conflict, is hogwash. WW1, WW2, Vietnam, precision air wars and humanitarian interventions in various palces--these are all "new" kinds of conflicts and principles are not suspended without a better reason.

If Bush Co can't stick to this, then they clearly want to be a little more free to persuade captives. They must either choose between deliberate dishonesty or seeking exemptions from the legislative branch if that's the tack they want to take.

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:42 pm**

Well it is a fact that the geneva convention does not apply to nonunaformed combatents. That said the idea that Bush is pushing abuses as a tact agenst detanies is pure nonsence. all the facts and numbers show otherwise.

The small # of "abuses" compared to the number that was housed there and all but even the small hand full that where found to be abused where miner and soly done by the person and was not polacy.

But lets not blame Bush because others havnt gotn off there butts and created a new standerd for this new type of fighter Its not Bushes falt that the geneva convention didnt apply to terriersts. And its not his place to create new internatanel standerds alone. Others should stop attacking bush for what he has done and start working on new standerds that apply to this type of detanie.

and acording to a new pole (yesterday I think) like 80% of the people in the US think the treatment of detanies is eather fare or better then thay deserve! the other 20% or so are just so anti Bush there blinded to the truth and will find somthing to try to bash hime with.

And as for "torture" thats subjective (I for 1 think the libral view is way to week and soft on not only interagation but punnishment as well)

But that said many of the things there calling torture there right now are no worse then what some people go out to do for fun on a friday night (sick but true)

And considering how open the US has been with there own investagations and treatment of detanies letting reporters/investagations from other orgs and so on. and still have 80% of the people in the US supporting it. Tells me that Bush is on the right track. and regardless of what he does he will never make the other 20% happy.

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:59 pm**

Meaton, did you read the Annas article about torture and US and international law (ratified by the US)? I would guess that you had not based on your response. Besides, I really don't care what 80% of people think should be done to the prisoners, or what fraction were mistreated. Those are red herrings. The law is the law, it is not up for a popularity contest, and screwing up on a percentage basis is also known as simply screwing up. Bush cannot also improvise or write law (that is not his job, his job is to ENFORCE law) if he feels current law is inadequate to deal with a situation. He needs to turn to legislators for that. Honestly, to propose that a nation get s pass on prisoner treatment while other nations conference about what might or might not apply is a sentiment you probably wouldn't express if US troops were held captive in camps and subjected to an Iraqi "interpretation, selective suspension, and revision" of prisoner treatment standards.

Meanwhile, the US is delaying a response to a UN request to visit Gitmo to investigate charges of prisoner abuse. Such requests had recently been granted by Mongolia and occupied Tibet. We can do better. Plus, if we don't follow the UN on this matter, we'd be forced to admit that we're in violation and may end up invading and liberating ourselves.

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:33 pm**

I always find it interesting when people say that we need to be tougher on criminals during interrogation... upto and in some cases even advocating outright torture of the criminal, alleged terrorist, or other person accused of some malfeasance.

BUT, let those same people get put in a situation where they are the ones who are being questioned by the authorities and the tune quickly turns into complaining about the trampling of their Constitutional Rights!

Don't think I'm picking on folks who are generally considered Liberal or folks that are generally considered Conservative... Truth is that both sides, especially post-9/11/01, are in one way or another doing this same type of double-speak. It boils down to, "those are just terrorist <or enemy comb atants, or fill-in-your-favorite-here> and if we need to treat them harshly to get the information we need, then you do what you gotta do" while at the same time, "I'm an honest upstanding citizen of the U.S. of A.!!! I have Rights... RIGHTS I tells ya! Look what they're doin' to MY rights! They don't have the right to do that to ME! Police Brutality!"

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:48 pm**

So true...

I was reading Grossman's On Combat on the plane home from your neck of the woods, Panther. I've been re-reading it in pieces. Early in the book he's talking about a bodily function response to combat that is seldom reported anywhere. (pissing or crapping your pants) He gives examples from battles to police raids to firemen dodging falling buildings during 9/11.

Reported in documents about war? Nope... In the press describing a battle? Nope... What you tell your grandkids when they ask you what you did during the war? Hell no!

In any case, he attributes it to an old saying - All's fair in love and war. By Grossman's account, a corollary to that adage would be Everyone lies about sex and war.

On the same subject here... This piece should add to the spice of Panther's post. It was written by the famed defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz. Go figure...

- Bill

Want to torture? Get a warrant

Alan M. Dershowitz

Tuesday, January 22, 2002

IF AMERICAN law enforcement officers were ever to confront the law school hypothetical case of the captured terrorist who knew about an imminent attack but refused to provide the information necessary to prevent it, I have absolutely no doubt that they would try to torture the terrorists into providing the information.

Moreover, the vast majority of Americans would expect the officers to engage in that time-tested technique for loosening tongues, notwithstanding our unequivocal treaty obligation never to employ torture, no matter how exigent the circumstances. The real question is not whether torture would be used -- it would -- but whether it would be used outside of the law or within the law.

Every democracy, including our own, has employed torture outside of the law.

Throughout the years, police officers have tortured murder and rape suspects into confessing -- sometimes truthfully, sometimes not truthfully.

The "third degree" is all too common, not only on TV shows such as "NYPD Blue," but in the back rooms of real police station houses. No democracy, other than Israel, has ever employed torture within the law. Until quite recently, Israel recognized the power of its security agencies to employ what it euphemistically called "moderate physical pressure" to elicit information from terrorists about continuing threats.

This "pressure" entailed putting the suspect in a dingy cell with a smelly sack over his head and shaking him violently until he disclosed planned terrorist attacks. Israel never allowed the information elicited by these methods to be used in courts of law as confessions. But it did use the information to prevent terrorist acts.

Several attacks were prevented by this unpleasant tactic. In a courageous and controversial decision, the president of the Israeli Supreme Court wrote a majority opinion banning the use of this tactic against suspected terrorists.

The Israeli Supreme Court left open the possibility, however, that in an actual "ticking bomb" case -- a situation in which a terrorist refused to divulge information necessary to defuse a bomb that was about to kill hundreds of innocent civilians -- an agent who employed physical pressure could defend himself against criminal charges by invoking "the law of necessity."

No such case has arisen since this court decision, despite numerous instances of terrorism in that troubled part of the world. Nor has there ever been a ticking bomb case in this country.

But inevitably one will arise, and we should be prepared to confront it. It is important that a decision be made in advance of an actual ticking bomb case about how we should deal with this inevitable situation.

In my new book, "Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age," I offer a controversial proposal designed to stimulate debate about this difficult issue. Under my proposal, no torture would be permitted without a "torture warrant" being issued by a judge.

An application for a torture warrant would have to be based on the absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it.

The suspect would be given immunity from prosecution based on information elicited by the torture. The warrant would limit the torture to nonlethal means, such as sterile needles, being inserted beneath the nails to cause excruciating pain without endangering life.

It may sound absurd for a distinguished judge to be issuing a warrant to do something so awful.

But consider the alternatives: Either police would torture below the radar screen of accountability, or the judge who issued the warrant would be accountable. Which would be more consistent with democratic values?

Those opposed to the idea of a torture warrant argue -- quite reasonably -- that establishing such a precedent would legitimize torture and make it easier to extend its permissible use beyond the ticking bomb case.

Those who favor the torture warrant argue that the opposite would be true: By expressly limiting the use of torture only to the ticking bomb case and by requiring a highly visible judge to approve, limit and monitor the torture, it will be far more difficult to justify its extension to other institutions.

The goal of the warrant would be to reduce and limit the amount of torture that would, in fact, be used in an emergency. This is an issue that should be discussed now, before we confront the emergency.

So, let the debate begin.

Alan M. Dershowitz is a Harvard law professor and a former member of the O.J. Simpson ""Dream Team.'' Last Sunday, he appeared on ""60 Minutes'' to make a case for legal torture. His latest book is ""Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age'' (Little Brown, 2002).

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:56 am**

Two words...

Slippery Slope.

No increase in the power of government has ever been reversed by government voluntarily. The norm is that far reaching powers granted to the government "for emergencies" end up being considered necessary when the emergency in question has passed. Onerous laws throughout history have only been reversed through bloodshed. When they decide that anyone who knows a martial art is a threat to society and start torturing people to find out who practices the evil craft, will those who believe in liberty stand idly by while others are tortured... as long as their particular martial art isn't part of the dragnet or as long as they are beneath the radar? OR will they ban together to oppose the torture and regain liberty and freedom through bloodshed, because that is what it will take?

Far fetched? Hitler was properly elected to power and by the time anyone thought to stand up to him the opposition was being tortured. The electorate of Germany voted for Hitler and ended up granting him his powers because of the "emergencies" enveloping Germany at the time.

What's being proposed is granting an enourmous amount of power because of emergencies which are on-going. These "emergencies" have been used to pass all manner of laws since 9/11 which would have never been given serious consideration prior to that. In 1930's Germany it was the yellow star of David... perhaps now, here it's the attire worn on your head... perhaps at some point, instead of the star of David on your chest it will be the large Kanji for "Ue" that is used to identify the ones to go after...

Be careful what you wish for...

Be careful what you agree to...

Be careful what you allow to happen...

But remember... "Kill 'em all and let G-D sort 'em out!"

Uechi-Ryu.com

Iraq, part deux

Iraq, part deux

Just an observation from the litterbox...