We’re NATO and We’re Here To Help You: General Admits It Killed Over Dozen Rebels But Says It Had No Idea They Had Tanks

Rear Adm. Russell Harding, the deputy commander of NATO forces in Libya, admitted today that NATO killed over a dozen rebel soldiers but refused to apologize. What struck me as the most odd was his statement that NATO did not know rebels had tanks when I have seen numerous pictures in the popular press of rebels driving tanks. It is a bit disconcerting that NATO intelligence is worse than mine.

Harding said “it would appear that two of our strikes yesterday may have resulted in the deaths of a number of TNC forces . . . I’m not apologizing,” Harding told reporters in Naples, Italy. “The situation on the ground was extremely fluid and remains extremely fluid. And up until yesterday we had no information that the TNC or the opposition forces were using tanks.” Now we know why Harding did not choose either intelligence or diplomacy as a career.

In the meantime, we have now spent over $1 billion and are now saying we could send in ground troops into our new war.

Source: McClatchy

81 thoughts on “We’re NATO and We’re Here To Help You: General Admits It Killed Over Dozen Rebels But Says It Had No Idea They Had Tanks

  1. Yippie….I am just so happy….it really makes my heart sing… Hey Johnny….you can be dumb…well just make you a human cannonball….because we sent all of the smart ones over seas….

    NATO…..Not Answering or Telling Obama…..

  2. ““it would appear that two of our strikes yesterday may have resulted in the deaths of a number of TNC forces . . . I’m not apologizing,” Harding told reporters in Naples, Italy.”

    Hee hee … my bad!

  3. From The White House Office of Legal Counsel’s Rationale for Libyan War Is Positively Orwellian by Rep. Dennis Kucinich

    “In the legal memo provided by the president’s Office of Legal Counsel, the administration argues that the president had the authority to attack Libya absent Congressional authorization because he determined it was in the national interest and because the U.S. is engaged in limited military operations that do not constitute a war.

    The war in Libya is not in our national interest. The claim that the U.S. had to act in Libya in order to maintain stability in the region — “a vital U.S. interest” — runs contrary to the history of U.S. military intervention in the region. As evidenced by U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and drone bombing campaigns in Pakistan, rather than maintain stability, U.S. military action in the region has unfortunately served to further instability. Occupations fuel insurgencies and close a circle of never-ending violence. Additionally, the doctrine that the U.S. has a responsibility to act militarily, without prior authorization from Congress, in the event of a threat to any of our friends in the world puts us on a path to permanent war and has no legal basis in the Constitution or the War Powers Act.

    The Obama administration has prosecuted a war that is “not a war.” The assertion that U.S. military actions in Libya do not constitute war belies the significant use of military force in Libya. The administration’s own Secretary of Defense, while testifying before Congress last month, admitted that enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya was an act of war: “A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses.” The United States, thus far, has spent well over $550 million on the war in Libya, using at least 112 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, estimated to cost up to $1.5 million each, in the first day alone. The U.S. also used Joint Direct Attack Munitions — 2,000 pound bombs — to bomb Libya. The characterization of the use of force in Libya solely as a humanitarian intervention cannot hide the reality of what war is. The attempt to assert that this is not a war does violence to cognition and violence to the English language. It is positively Orwellian.

    The administration also claims that authority to use U.S. military force abroad was provided by United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973, which authorized member states to “take all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians and to enforce a no-fly zone. The Constitution does not provide an exception for the president to unilaterally decide to use military force abroad if an international body, such as the United Nations, provides him with one. It is unequivocally clear, in Article 1, Section 8, that the power to authorize the use of military force or to declare war lies solely with Congress.

    The law provides the president with the authority to use military force absent prior Congressional authorization only to repel sudden or imminent attack. There was no threat of sudden or imminent attack to the United States from Libya. President Obama himself recognized the constitutional limitations imposed on any U.S. president when, in an October 2008 interview, he stated that ‘The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.’

    In the sophistry of the Office of Legal Counsel’s memo, the Obama administration fails to justify what cannot be justified.” [emphasis added]

    The OLC making logically impossible statements to justify a crime?

    Now why does that sound so . . . disturbingly familiar.

    cough cough cough Bybee cough cough Yoo cough cough Torture

  4. Buddha,

    Yeah, but Bush invaded two countries, so this is an improvement. At this rate, the next president will only invade half a country.

    http://xkcd.com/605/

    I choose a “approaches zero” rather than a straight linear formula because, at this point it’s just something American President’s do… like pardoning the second largest Turkey the day before Thanksgiving (You can tell it’s staged because, really just one day before? that doesn’t even give it time for the muscles to relax before it goes into the brine).

  5. RE: PatricParamedic, April 8, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    And these are some of the same block-heads who shout from the belfry that “people hate us because we’re free.”

    Newsflash: That ain’t why they hate us.

    #######################################

    Or is “us” being free why they hate us?

    We are free to invade any country our supposed government decides to invade?

    We are free to change any government in any country we want to change if we can get away with it?

    We are free to exploit the resources of other nations for the benefit of U.S. Corporations?

    We are free to pillage and plunder the world because we have manifest destiny on our side?

    We are free to decide what is freedom for those we enslave with our corporate economy?

    Perhaps it is because we are free to exploit other nations and their people that we are hated?

    Alas, that “free we” only includes not-me.

    Perhaps some people want to be free from our freedom?

  6. JBH: “Perhaps some people want to be free from our freedom?”

    I’m getting pretty sick of it myself…

  7. suspected terrorists are still being held under hazy circumstances with uncertain rights in secret, military-run jails across Afghanistan, where they can be interrogated for weeks without charge, according to U.S. officials who revealed details of the top-secret network to The Associated Press.

    The Pentagon has previously denied operating secret jails in Afghanistan, although human rights groups and former detainees have described the facilities. U.S. military and other government officials confirmed that the detention centers exist but described them as temporary holding pens whose primary purpose is to gather intelligence.

    The Pentagon also has said that detainees only stay in temporary detention sites for 14 days, unless they are extended under extraordinary circumstances. But U.S. officials told the AP that detainees can be held at the temporary jails for up to nine weeks, depending on the value of information they produce. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the program is classified.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5inXvzBUlQMp9EAcENJMNqKKKcmwA?docId=5192d819def741c685df0083adf4c491

  8. War against bedlam would be just as rational as against Europe in its present condition of total demoralization. When peace becomes more losing than war, we may prefer the latter on principles of pecuniary calculation. But for us to attempt, by war, to reform all Europe and bring them back to principles of morality, and a respect for the equal rights of nations, would show us to be only maniacs of another character. We should indeed, have the merit of the good intentions as well as of the folly of the hero of La Mancha.
    Thomas Jefferson to William Wirt May 1811

    substitute Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan for Europe.

  9. Kucinich is correct. But it is sad he stands on the Constitution in a selective manner. There is no constitutional authorization for Social Security, Medicare, and now Obamacare. Yet Kucinich supports all these programs. So, it seems that Kucinich is merely echoing the words of those, unlike him, who are genuinely committed to fidelity to the Constitution.

    You have to question the motives and the integrity of a person who cherry picks at the Constitution.

  10. “You have to question the motives and the integrity of a person who cherry picks at the Constitution.”

    Yeah, we sure do, Tootles. Cherry picking like you when you’ve said you think Christianity’s values should be made law in contravention of the 1st Amendment. By the way, the Constitution allows specifically for both taxation and for spending on the promotion of the common good and the general welfare of the citizenry, thus it does allow those programs you mentioned. Kucinich isn’t the cherry picker here.

    You are.

  11. Buddha,

    You are confused. Again.

    You fail to acknowledge what the anti-establishment means and I can only conclude that it has to do with your contempt for Christians or religious people. The clause you refer to does not bar any religious persons from supporting laws that are in agreement with their religious values (short of forcing others to practice their religion).

    The establishment clause was meant to prevent the federal government from setting up a state (Federal) sponsorered church. This is completely different from the nonsense you promote here that religious people are barred from supporting or sponsoring laws which uphold their values. By your version this would strip them of rights equivalent to yours. And the mostly Christian citizens of that day would not have agreed to such a loathsome denial of rights.

    Several states at the time of the founding had state sponsored Churches and were told by the proponents of the Constitution that the feds COULD NOT interfere with them and held to that promise with the soon to be added first amendment. Only after this promise, did those states with established churches ratify.

    A proposal by James Madison similar to what you suggest was specifically rejected by the framers and did not find it ways into the Constitution. You do not know history or your do and attempt to hide the truth.

    Your position on the matter is the same position as former Klan member Justice Hugo Black who, according to Kevin Gutzman once “had active support from the Klu Klux Klan” to win a senate seat in the 40s.

    Gutzman writes “The court performed a similar feat [turning the establishment clause “on its head” like you are] in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing township (1947)…Black claimed that not only did the First Amendment establishment Clause apply to the state and local governments (which it decidedly did not, in its original understanding, as some states at the time of ratification had established state churches), but that it also erected, in language not found in the Constitution, “a wall of separation between church and state.”” page 175 and 6.

    Gutzman goes on to note that Jefferson didn’t have anything to do with the writing of the Constitution. And Black, the former Klansman, mis-characterized Jefferson’s role and the meaning of the first amendment like you now perpetuate.

  12. JBH –

    Great points, as always.

    I’m no historian, but the power-mongers of each era seem to do a terrific job of stomping on the weak, just because they can. And they come up with such radiant names for their damages. No doubt Caligula – raised within his sorry corpse from the grave – could rant on & on about the intrinsic value of cruelty.

    And although I’m skeptical of “Karma,” it does indeed seem as though every freedom-on-steroids nation that comes along, collapses under the weight of it’s own excesses.

    Ah, but if Kurzweil & Vinge are right, mayhaps we merely need to hang on for another 20 years, when at lease some of us will opt to morph into spiritual machines.

    And I’ll be ripe for the change in scenery.

  13. No, Tootles.

    I’m not confused in the slightest, Theocrat.

    But you are doing some fine backpedaling and distortions of some of your original statements.

    Such as your endorsement of discrimination against homosexuals. That’s an attempt to put your religious values as law in contravention of both the 1st and 14th Amendments. And if you think you aren’t in contravention of the Establishment clause, you’ve obviously never understood either precedent under the common law system or the that Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) is still valid law whether you think it isn’t or not. Considering that Everson relies upon a primary drafter’s stated intent when it states in full that the Establishment Clause “means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.'”? That means what you think the Founders meant is trumped by what a Founder actually said. Sorry! In matters of Constitutional law, Jefferson always trumps the Fundie Jesus. Or any other fairy tale figure as well, including Mohamed and Moses. And that bolded section? That would include your religiously rationalize bigotry against homosexuals who have the same rights under the 14th Amendment as any citizen. The government cannot aid in your religiously based bigotry.

    Now if you want to take issue that Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was quoted in Everson instead of James Madison, the primary drafter of the Constitution, let’s take a look at how Madison felt about the Separation of Church and State, shall we?

    “[I]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov’t from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.” – James Madison, in a letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, 1832.

    Ooo. And this jewel too . . .

    “What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. [. . .] Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” – James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, delivered and addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785.

    To further bolster the case that a Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state” was exactly what the Founding Fathers intended, including Madison . . .

    “…Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.” – James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution, June 1778.

    Did you catch that? Madison said that at the Virgina ratification Convention. Ooo. It gets even clearer . . .

    “We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov[ernment].” – James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, , 1822.

    Liberty and freedom were what the Founders wanted. Liberty and freedom from both Kings and Priests. A secular government of laws, not men, and most certainly not religion.

    Seems you are once again full of theocratic crap, Tootles.

    Keep your religion off our government.

    It’s what the Founding Father wanted. Specifically what Jefferson – the author of the Declaration of Independence – and James Madison – the Father of the Constitution – wanted and expressed many times over the course of their public and private lives.

  14. Sometimes a simple exchange of banter rules out doing something helpful. Anyone who dislikes these words is free to ignore them, at least as far as I am concerned.

    Is it possible for two opposing, mutually-exclusive, flawlessly dichotomous, beliefs to both be equally true?

    I find that my answer to that question is “Definitely,” if the two views are conveyed purely through connotation (that is, in the absence of denotation).

    (Connotation = only in words; denotation = only in meanings)

    I get to this question through staying up late and observing some television of the dance of government shutdown avoidance late last evening and early this morning.

    Having “slept on” what came to my attention before I went to sleep, I have come to an awareness of a pattern, one which may or may not be useful to share here, and, like an emoticon that did not work, I will not know whether my writing this is good or bad and/or right or wrong if I do not write it.

    While I will be gladly delighted to find the pattern which came to my awareness torn to shreds, ridiculed, and shown to be horribly stupid, I am loath to welcome my being trashed as a messenger merely because, without my yet understanding so, the message I bring is worthy of being thoroughly trashed.

    As framework for the pattern, the following occurs to me. Each individual person’s life is a sequence of experiences, none of which can be anticipated without the possibility of a difference between what was anticipated regarding the experience which is about to happen having some chance of being different than the understanding of the experience after it has happened.

    I have a simple word for the difference between anticipation before an experience and understanding after the experience; that word is “learning.”

    I also have a simple word pair for the brain biology phenomena which comprise learning, and that word pair is, “brain plasticity.”

    Because I seek to avoid deception, I have previously mentioned that my dad was a Congregational/UCC ordained minister, as were his biological parents (his mom died when my dad was about two).

    To further avoid deception, I am ordained, though not in any sect or denomination, and became ordained so as to have the lawful right to talk with people within the confidentiality of pastoral privilege; without which what work I do regarding human divisiveness would be, in my view, terribly unethical.

    When I was rather young, my dad bought a Columbia long-playing recording of Handel, Messiah. It was not the complete Messiah, and, in the early 1960s, I got the Hermann Scherchen Westminster stereo recording. A while ago, I updated Messiah with the Stephen Layton – Hyperion compact disk recording.

    So what?

    In all three aforementioned recordings is an aria which begins with the words, “Why do the nations so furiously rage together, and why do the people imagine a vain thing?”

    Those words, “why do the people imagine a vain thing”? That, when I was in grade school and first listened to the Columbia recording, got to me at effective parity with, “Why do the nations so furiously rage together, …?”

    Is it human nature to form nations which rage together and to imagine a vain thing, or, is it human nature to overcome raging nations and vain imaginings?

    In his epigentic chart of psycho-social developmental crises, Erik H. Erikson, already mentioned by me, the first stage is of the resolution of “trust v. mistrust,” and the final stage is the resolution of “integrity v. despair.”

    I mention Erik H. Erikson, not as an authority figure, but in an effort to preclude being accused of plagiarizing his work. Nonetheless, as I review my life and life experiences, it appears to me that my life has been grounded in an unbreakable trust in the phenomenon of life as I can make any sense of life. It is that unbreakable trust which allows me to explore the notion that something about the quantum mechanics of biophysics may have much to do with nations raging together and people imagining a vain thing.

    What vain thing might I have in mind? It is simple to me.

    The vain thing is (to me, if to no one else) the belief that it is possible for a specific individual person to know something that the individual person has not yet actually learned and to understand something that the individual person has not yet actually done.

    Is freedom desirable or undesirable? I have observed that the nations sometimes furiously rage together, as in the sincere(?) belief methinks was espoused by former President George W. Bush, to the effect that many people in Iraq could be given freedom by our invading Iraq as we did, and President George W. Bush surely was correct in his view of freedom for those the invasion of Iraq freed from being alive.

    Being set free from being alive is a strange sort of freedom, as I can make any useful sense of freedom. Of course, my useful sense of freedom is partly based on those three years during which I was a “severe chronic” psychiatric patient, so, perhaps there is no valid reason to pay any attention to anything I can ever say or do.

    It may be wise to observe that I put out my having been a “severe chronic” so that no one can properly assert that I hid a significant fact about my life from “the public.” I am neither proud nor ashamed of those “severe chronic” times of my life, what happened was what I find was possible and what did not happen is what I find was impossible.

    I do, however, have a very clear sense of what it is to be caught up in an intense psychotic state, and I have a very clear sense of what it is to recognize being in an intense psychotic state and I have a very clear sense of what I did to overcome it.

    With that as preamble, I find that I am in about 60 percent agreement with Tootie regarding her description of her understanding of the U.S. Constitution and am in about 40 percent agreement with the description of Buddha is Laughing.

    I cannot find myself in complete agreement with either, nor can I find myself in complete disagreement.

    And what I find I can never be in agreement with is the notion that attacking a person is a viable way to work through disagreements regarding personal beliefs.

    There are no disagreements between the United States of America and the living people who died in the invasion of Iraq.

    There are no such disagreements because those living people ceased to be living people as a direct consequence of the invasion of Iraq.

    What more tragic way is possible for resolving disagreements among living people?

    Attacking a person instead of the beliefs of the person is the most magnificent way of all to maintain hatred and its ineluctable violence?

    Thus, I have no interest in equity under law.

    And I have unrelenting interest in equanimity under law.

    Equanimity under law, methinks, precludes any possible validity of hominem arguments.

    Why do the nations so furiously rage together? Because the people of the nations who so rage, similarly rage within such nations and similarly rage within the families of such nations and the people of such nations as furiously rage together are people so divided against self through socialization experiences as to be oblivious to their inner rage and its projection onto family, community, nation, and nations.

    But then, what could I ever know? I stipulate that I have been a severe chronic psychiatric inpatient.

    Surely no one could ever learn anything of value from going through personally shattering experiences and surviving and thriving thereafter?

    Or, is it possible that I learned something worth sharing, because life is worth caring, for those sufficiently daring, who diligently seek to avoid warfaring?

    As I wrote earlier,

    “Why can’t we be friends?”

    If anyone can find anything other than a form of hatred which impedes friendship, I would welcome hearing of it.

    All I have ever found that impedes friendship is one or another form of hatred.

    Plunging verbal knives in peoples backs and vehemently twisting the knives simply does not fit anywhere within my sense of actual friendship.

    Perhaps it is first necessary for a person to truly be a friend of self before it is possible to be an actual friend of anyone else?

    I am only one ordinary person, and I make mistakes.

    What would I possibly know or understand that matters?

    A nuclear power plant, divided against itself by an earthquake and tsunami may not stand as a working source of electricity. Yet what happened recently in Japan, grievously tragic in my view, was not anticipated sufficiently to prevent it because life simply works that way; no one can accurately anticipate what cannot yet be accurately anticipated by anyone.

    If we (individual human persons) were to explore working collaboratively instead of competitively, might we find we have the ability and resources to resolve every serious human difficulty, and might such resolution be effectively impeded by maintaining (as an imagined vain thing) the notion that existence is a closed system in which competition is the only way to win?

    There is a simple property of closed systems, none can actually ever exist except as a simplified mental model (often useful for improving technology implementation), because a closed system can never be formed, because it would have to exist before it could be formed, which is, to me, a physics absurdity.

    Zero sum game models are all based on closed-system notions, and, alas, there simply are no actual closed systems within the realm of physical possibility.

    The big bang? What if what banged (those “branes”) was the existence of non-existence before existence existed, for, if non-existence existed before existence existed, then existence existed before it existed. That just may be the ultimate first-cause basis of the adversarial system as a philosophical notion. And the words I just wrote are pure nonsense, are they not?

    Perhaps more of existence needs to exist before a viable resolution of the seeming paradox of existence comes into existence?

    Attack me for being stupid, and you will get no argument from me; I find my stupidity is at least infinite. Likewise, my ignorance.

    Is ignorance other than a sign of learning which has yet to happen?

    I harbor the quaint notion that war is always the result of misunderstandings; and therefore, I always expect misunderstandings to arise during warfare.

    Are misunderstandings ever other than forms of ignorance?

    Is ignorance ever other than the opportunity for more learning?

    Have I missed something important?

  15. That doesn’t make you stupid, Brian.

    It simply makes you 60% wrong about the Constitution and the manifest and much evidenced intentions of the Founding Fathers regarding the Separation of Church and State. As Tootles is a theocrat and you’re prone to religious reasoning as a rationale for law, that your opinion lines with hers more than mine is no surprise. You are entitled to you own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. The facts are that the Founders in question – Jefferson and Madison – made it quite clear in their own words that the Separation of Church and State was to be total; with the State barred from establishing a church and the various churches barred from bending the law to gain advantage.

  16. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, April 9, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    That doesn’t make you stupid, Brian.

    ##################################

    Could you prove that in a court of law?

    While I resolutely oppose government establishment of religion, in a world in which no one seems to really know what religion, taken as a whole, really is, who has the actual ability to establish non-establishment?

    I am a perhaps best labeled as a religious establishment disestablishmentarianist.

    A couple years ago, I bought a book at a Catholic University bookstore, “Heresies and How to Avoid Them,” Ben Quash % Michael Ward, eds., Hendrickson Publishers, 2007. According to that book, I am a heretic.

    From page 1 of said book, “A heretic is a baptized person who obstinately denies or doubts a truth which the Church teaches must be believed because it is part of the one, divinely revealed, and catholic (that is, universally valid) Christian faith.”

    I bought that book to make sure that I had included within my life every heresy listed in the book, and was gladdened in heart, mind, soul, and strength, to discover that I had put every listed heresy to good and proper use in my life.

    Methinks, if I am living my life properly, there is not one belief of consensus indoctrination with respect to which I am not a heretic.

    Alas, to me, a heretic is a person who attends to conscience in preference to groupthink.

  17. Well Brian, you should be relived to learn then that the law has absolutely no interest whatsoever in whether you are or are not a heretic.

  18. Buddha Is Laughing 1, April 9, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    Well Brian, you should be relived to learn then that the law has absolutely no interest whatsoever in whether you are or are not a heretic.

    ################################

    True, but for one tiny and insignificant detail.

    With regard to “The Adversarial System” as I find it to be an established religion, which, like all similar established religions, falsely and tyrannically claims to not be an established religion, I am perhaps a greater heretic than in any other way possible.

    Law by groupthink consensus and not by individual conscience is, to me, inseparable from other groupthink religious traditions whose fiduciary beneficiaries similarly claim to be not religious.

    In one of today’s threads, “The Hedge…” is mentioned the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson of Oct. 7, 1801, and from that letter, “…till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth.”

    I continue to observe that adversarial law is both of “Hierarchy and Tyranny” though scientific understanding of human brain function has only recently become sufficiently developed to begin to allow sorting out mistakes of tradition from demonstrable fact. Fact asserted is not fact demonstrated.

    Seems to me that I have been labeled in diverse ad hominem fallacy attack ways. Sadly, for those who take exception to what I regard as my work, all the ad hominem attacks have accomplished is further validating of the work I have been doing.

    I happen to be a little bit like Roger Williams; when I observe harm, I protest, and work toward solving the problem of harm.

    Roger Williams was the teacher and pastor of the first Congregational church in Salem, Massachusetts, before becoming unacceptable because of his beliefs, he was briefly Baptist before becoming a seeker (or, if you prefer, a Quaker).

    When the best a believer in the adversarial system can achieve is to attack me as a person without demonstrating any error of consequence in my work, my awareness of religion is stimulated.

    Because I was not born with and never took in the belief that people make mistakes (or choices or decisions or actions) for which punishment of the person is valid, I inescapably find the punishment of persons for actions to be of a false religious tradition, and, absent the little demonstration no one has done, will continue to not take in such a belief because my doing so would violate my conscience, which dictates that I not take in that form of deception in accord with my Wisconsin Constitution right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of my conscience.

    That little contradiction in terms simply does not vanish because of coercion from authoritarian, hierarchical tyranny sent my way in an effort to persuade me to violate my conscience.

    It might be wise to allow that other people have the mental capacity to test for themselves the worth, if any, of what my life allows me to do that does not actually hurt anyone.

    I long ago learned to be wary of those who claim to know what is impossible to know. I do not know that no mistake actually made could not have been avoided, because I have no way to know about every mistake ever made.

    What I am able to do is to test the question of mistakes with people who are willing to talk with me enough to find whether someone with whom I am able to talk can actually tell me of even one mistake actually made and the way it could have actually been avoided.

    Okay, a suitable time machine would do the trick. Fine with me if the machine is actually demonstrated and not merely asserted to be possible because of some mathematical equations which themselves cannot be demonstrated as implemented in a working physical time machine which works as claimed.

    I find the biology of addiction increasingly remarkable.

    For me, there may be good news. In today’s mail came my copy of “PE: The Magazine for Professional Engineers,” the April, 2011, issue. There is an article on pages 20-23, “Growth Spurt: Four engineering disciplines have seen their number of graduates more than double from 2000 to 2009.” The engineering field with the greatest expected growth, 72% by 2018, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is, biomedical engineering. If that happens, there may be many more biomedical engineers and bioengieers who will put engineering methods to work in solving the most intractable of human problems, the problem of human violence.

    From that article, from Biomedical Engineering Society (I am a member) President Richard Waugh, “What’s ultimately driving this is the possibilities of using what’s been discovered in the world of biology and making it work in a practical way i health care and health.”

    Biomedical engineers may yet catch on to what I have been doing, using bioengineering and biomedical engineering approaches to study the nature of human mental health and the consequences of human mental illness, only doing so with the verifiable objectivity of engineering instead of the subjectivity of traditional social science studies and other human activities which predate the era of scientific validation.

    I think it may be very much of interest to the law profession if solid, demonstrable, irrefutable bioengineering methods begin to actually solve the long-standing enigma of human violence through accurately identifying the biological-social mechanisms which drive such violence and, by using accuracy and decency as replacements for traditions which are neither accurate nor decent, help humanity to re-design its social structures for increased public safety.

    It is only a few decades since scientific study of attribution became feasible. The alternative to accurate attribution, blaming people, has been around for many thousands of years and remains well entrenched in popular beliefs.

    Yet change seems to happen, with or without human permission.

    I just might be a more competent heretic than you may yet imagine possible.

  19. RE: J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E., April 9, 2011 at 8:30 pm

    Clicked “Post comment” box just before a typo caught my attention:

    Typo:

    “What’s ultimately driving this is the possibilities of using what’s been discovered in the world of biology and making it work in a practical way i health care and health.”

    Typo corrected (missing “n”):

    “What’s ultimately driving this is the possibilities of using what’s been discovered in the world of biology and making it work in a practical way in health care and health.”

  20. “With regard to “The Adversarial System” as I find it to be an established religion, which, like all similar established religions, falsely and tyrannically claims to not be an established religion, I am perhaps a greater heretic than in any other way possible.”

    And again, you’re full of crap, Brian.

    The adversarial system of courts is not a religion.

    It’s a method for dispute resolution that removes self-help violence and the tyranny of the strong over the weak from human interactions, thus creating the stability required for contiguous civilization. And even if you do solve the problem of violence, you will still not resolve the nature of disputes and their inherently adversarial nature. Even in a physically peaceful society, there will be wrongs and disputes that need to be settled. And they will need to be settled in a way that allows both sides to air their cases and display their evidence before an impartial judge and often a jury of their peers.

    Law is neither health care nor bioengineering. You may be a heretic to a religion or religious tradition. Law is not a religion by definition no matter what your distorted perceptions tell you. You cannot be a heretic to law. You can be, however, what you are in relation to the nature and social functions of legal systems.

    Simply wrong.

    If you really want to start spewing that antisocial nonsensical legal theory of yours again? I’ll be glad to destroy it some more. It’s quite easy to do.

    I suggest you keep in mind what happened last time and resume your more cogent form of posting that you have adopted of late.

    And remember the story of the Crows, the Lion and the Elephant.

  21. i’m pointing this out, not for the corrections page, but to show what is going on in libya.

    the title of this post says “we’re nato and we’re here to help you”: general admits it killed…

    the first line says

    Rear Adm. Russell Harding, the deputy commander of NATO forces in Libya, admitted today

    ok a general is a flag rank officer in the army, air force or marines. a rear admiral is a flag rank officer in the navy,as in water. they have a rear admiral (navy, water)in charge of action in a desert(hot ,dry) and wonder why some of the wrong tanks were destroyed.

    duh

  22. Wait wait — what’s the point of NOT being sorry when you kill somebody you DIDN’T mean to kill? You should even be sorry when you kill somebody you DO mean to kill. I’m sure I must be missing something. Is it big?

  23. 安全なとカジュアル |タイプの|のさまざまな私たちの目と心をキャッチし、正確とは| }はイザベルマランスニーカー{ものです。 しかしイザベルマランスニーカーが一般的ではない通常は同じです。驚くほど素晴らしい他トレンド ブランド名 、 {彼らアール|彼らはね|彼らはかもしれ|彼らはすることができます|彼らが実際にある| |彼らが実際にある|これらは 彼らは単にある|そこにいるライフスタイル| |日常生活|道の人生の}近い|私たち日常生活に近い 。そしてイザベルマラン靴 だろう ガジェット私たちのワードローブのため。 {にイザベルマランスニーカー独特完全にユニークです|中|インサイド|にある間|の|中に|と|インサイド| ON |周り} 方法 社会 種類 。 独占 様々の培養物を混合 インサイド スニーカーイザベルマランの品種 。イザベルマランは彼女の望んでいるスタイルとデザイン することができます 人今日 プレゼントを示し、その臨時魅力かわいい であるでトレンディイザベルマランスニーカー なり ​​基礎 事実上すべてのため 検索 その意志取得することを目的対価 [ keyurl ] {スタイリッシュ|おしゃれな|トレンディ|エレガント|クラッシー|魅力|フットウェア| | あなたがする必要になります| |スニーカー} 必要になりますあなたに間違いなく 夜食 、ダンス、スポーツ約洗練された 靴と快適町または任意の場所 else あなたがする必要がある行くことを要求される|あなたがしたいと思う|あなたがしなければならない|それが絶対必要だ|それが重要である| ‘は、必要があるでしょう。

  24. But this simply recasts the problem: the US economy during the global financial system derailing the world’s
    economy leaders, alongside with the United States has declined.
    When I ask five different lawyers what the law actually
    means, I believe we have now symmetry. Maintain a positive, energetic, and hospitals
    gilbert az confident attitude during the interview.
    Also known as the total amount owed has now risen to Rs 10.
    Lugano Lake Lugano: Friday, Piazza della Riforma.

  25. You will be able to reach the 110, 000 capacity
    by 2009 as it launched its small car mobile followed by
    what seems to be an affordable option in terms of both appearance
    and performance. There are mobile two engine choices
    for Ford Mustang. Speaking to Romanian mobile media, Mr
    Spirescu confirmed that he had a number of bidders out there that still offer a sporty ride give
    you the utmost satisfaction. The law requires automobile
    manufacturers to refund, repair, or replacement. automobiles in the 1950s history

  26. The car combines both beauty and pleasure and for most a luxury.

    It’s hilarious to look at, and they are
    glad to offer their services and each of them has their own automobile in the repair of film all sorts of devices in our homes.
    Priority for the permits was given to Michael Schumacher.

    In the end, his decisions to do the work for me. You could also get it in a manner so film it looks as if it is for sale at half the market price.
    http://bennettynan.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/this-type-of-lift-is-useful-when-it-comes-to-performing-certain-maintenance-activities-like-washing-the-motorcycle-or-even-changing-fluids/

  27. A darker shade of gray instead of white covers their body; hence, they appear
    to be totally black. Independent keyset illumination non-volatile settings.
    You now know the reason why superhero flicks have already been displayed in theaters additional than once in a year.

  28. Whoever signs with me I will give you my private web site that has all detailed information on design, ideas, and affiliate
    websites engine search to get you started and boost your traffic through your website.
    Not only does it have gold plating switches but they are also much quieter compared to
    the razer blackwidow keyboard. In fact, they just kept hanging around and
    hanging around as if they were household pets.

  29. But above all, they should guarantee 100% satisfaction on every service they provide.
    Independent keyset illumination non-volatile settings.
    It features backlit keys and tons of customization options and also
    gets praise from writers who just love to type with it.

  30. In other words, you will have no real way of telling if
    that black widow you found under the porch is
    ready to have babies or not. touchscreen ‘ too far for
    quick access under typical circumstance. Jermy Renner
    and Mark Ruffalo are also seen in the background in the poster.

  31. But above all, they should guarantee 100%
    satisfaction on every service they provide. Keep an
    eye out for balloon boy flying in the sky in the background.

    Their distinction is not so much on their physical
    aspect but more on their seemingly high levels of
    intelligence.

  32. Hello there! This article couldn’t be written any
    better! Looking through this article reminds me of my previous
    roommate! He always kept preaching about this. I most certainly will send
    this post to him. Pretty sure he’ll have a very good read.
    Thanks for sharing!

  33. Hello! I simply wish to give you a big thumbs up
    for your great info you have right here on this post. I am returning to your site for
    more soon.

  34. I every time used to study piece of writing in news papers
    but now as I am a user of web so from now I am
    using net for content, thanks to web.

  35. I just could not go away your site before suggesting that I really loved the standard information a person supply on your guests? Is gonna be back ceaselessly in order to investigate cross-check new posts.

  36. Hello there, I discovered your website by way of Google while searching
    for a similar matter, your web site came up,
    it seems great. I have bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

    Hello there, simply became aware of your blog through Google, and located that it is truly informative.

    I’m going to be careful for brussels. I’ll appreciate for
    those who continue this in future. Many people will likely be benefited out of
    your writing. Cheers!

  37. Hi there! I simply wish to give a huge thumbs up for the nice data you
    could have here on this post. I shall be coming back to your blog for
    extra soon.

  38. Can I simply just say what a comfort to find someone who really knows what they’re
    discussing on the net. You definitely understand
    how to bring a problem to light and make it important.
    More people must look at this and understand this side of
    the story. I was surprised that you’re not more popular given that you surely possess the gift.

  39. Woah! I’m really digging the template/theme of this site.
    It’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it’s
    hard to get that “perfect balance” between usability and appearance.
    I must say you have done a great job with this. Additionally, the blog loads extremely fast
    for me on Chrome. Outstanding Blog!

  40. Superb website you have here but I was curious about if you knew of any message boards
    that cover the same topics discussed here? I’d really love to be a part of group where I can get feed-back from other experienced individuals that share the same
    interest. If you have any suggestions, please let me know.
    Many thanks!

  41. Hello! This is my first visit to your blog!
    We are a collection of volunteers and starting a new project in a community in the same niche.
    Your blog provided us valuable information to work on.
    You have done a outstanding job!

  42. I am no longer sure where уou’re getting ykur info, however great topic.
    I must spend a while finding out much more or figurihg out mοre.
    Thanks for excellent info Ӏ was on the lookout for thiѕ info for my missiοn.

  43. Pretty element of content. I simply stumbled upon your site
    and in accession capital to assert that I get in fact loved account your blog posts.
    Any way I will be subscribing on your augment or even I fulfillment you access persistently quickly.

  44. First off I would like to say awesome blog! I had a quick question in which I’d like to ask if you don’t mind. I was interested to find out how you center yourself and clear your mind before writing. I’ve had difficulty clearing my mind in getting my thoughts out there. I truly do enjoy writing however it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes are lost just trying to figure out how to begin. Any ideas or tips? Thanks!

  45. Hi there would you mind letting me know which hosting company you’re using?
    I’ve loaded your blog in 3 completely different web browsers and
    I must say this blog loads a lot quicker then most. Can you recommend a good internet hosting provider at
    a fair price? Many thanks, I appreciate it!

Comments are closed.