Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
The Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has come up with an idea for celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War—known to some as the “War between the States.” The veterans group has proposed that the state of
Mississippi issue a series of specialty license plates commemorating the war. These specialty plates, planned for the years 2011 through 2015, would each have a different design.
What has some people upset is the specialty license plate slated for the year 2014, which would honor General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest, a native of Tennessee, is considered by some to have been a military genius. Others feel differently about Forrest who is “reviled” by some for allegedly having lead a massacre of Black Union troops at Fort Pillow in his home state in 1864. It should be noted that Forrest also served as the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
According to ABC News, the NAACP is planning to send a letter to Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour requesting “that he publicly denounce the license plate and use his office to prevent it from being issued.” Derrick Jackson, president of the Mississippi state NAACP, said of Forrest: “He should be viewed in the same light that we view Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The state of Mississippi should deny any vanity tags which would highlight racial hatred in this state.”
Although many historians agree that Nathan Bedford Forrest distanced himself from the KKK later in his life, some believe “it was too little too late because the Klan had already turned violent before Forrest left.”
Sources
yeah he investigated the length an weight of each fish i caught!lol! he determined i must be using some kind of illegal lure. ahh you idiots are the one who hang with folks who hang with folks, who hang with osama, so i hardly think i would need to worry near as much about an FBI investigation as you! but i heard a bird tell a worm that there are many liberal fringe extremists who are under investigations. see taking illegal money from terrorists is a crime. you all really crack me up!!!!roflmao! budda you are a racist as ur comments indicate ur true self.
As long as you remember we think you’re an illiterate, ignorant, knuckle dragging, racist, redneck sister-humper, Brent.
Enjoy your pending FBI investigation.
u just remember ur terrorist comments SCRIBE while u defend ur friends. lol!! u liberals are to easy. hipocrits of the highest order. good day to u all.
Bob,
“A prima facie case was never made against bin Laden.”
I didn’t say that there was. I said a trial was never going to happen and that was manifestly clear the day Obama said “Look forward”.
“Powell and Blair both failed to deliver as promised and the FBI never held bin Laden as Wanted for 9/11.”
And so what? Like I said, a trial was never in the works.
“Pragmatism demands that at least the minimum amount of rationality apply.”
You’re talking actual pragmatism. I’m talking political pragmatism. Two completely different creatures. Like I also said, in principle I’m with you 100%. But the reptile-brained truth of the matter is we got the wrong guy in office to bring OBL to trial. We got Bush Lite. And with any of the bought off PNAC cabal in power, a trial simply wasn’t going to happen. Why? Because they may be villains in the James Bond mold, but those wormy bastards want to avoid the rope too. And they couldn’t hang OBL without hanging themselves.
Bob,Esq.
1, May 21, 2011 at 7:14 am
Just imagine how convenient crime fighting becomes when you can replace due process with myth making.
========================================================
I go with Bob on this one. Once we strip away all the emotionalism, all the “war is hell” and “that’s just the way it is” and “America, right or wrong … love it or leave it” hyperbole we come down to the provable facts and to the law. Bob is stating both correctly.
I’m going to put it a bit more provocatively … CIA or FBI …
This is something the CIA would do without a second thought … but not the FBI and it might have something to do with that word in their motto “Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity” which may also be why they have never held bin Laden as wanted for 9/11.
OS,
So you’re saying that a video is substitute for due process?
In lieu of a prosecutor presenting a case he can now simply present a video and give the order to kill?
If that was enough, why didn’t Blair or Powell rest their case on it?
Adopt only that maxim that you would will to become a universal law.
You’re doing the exact opposite.
Buddha,
A prima facie case was never made against bin Laden.
Powell and Blair both failed to deliver as promised and the FBI never held bin Laden as Wanted for 9/11.
Pragmatism demands that at least the minimum amount of rationality apply.
AY,
What did I do to warrant the ‘tone it down’ warning?
Video of bin Laden from ABC news shortly after 9-11.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877
Bob,
You are letting your ideal smother your practical.
Ideally, OBL would have been captured and brought to trial.
That is the perfect outcome legally speaking.
This, however, is a political matter as well.
Look at the consequences of bringing OBL to trial (not all of which are bad, but that’s beside the point) . . .
1) Trial would be a media fiasco and his martyrdom maximized by the feeding frenzy. Bad outcome.
2) Assume he is found guilty. Prison or death? Either way, rallying point for recruitment. Bad outcome.
3) We’d have had to shine a big ol’ flashlight on the Bush Administrations actions – something our current sellout fascist in Chief won’t do because he’s a lying unconstitutional sack of crap just like Bush was. I’m not saying the Bush and Cheney don’t need to be brought to justice. In my book, that is the number one priority to getting this country back on track, however, no one in Obama’s administration has the spine to do it because a) the “contribution” checks have cleared the bank b) he’d be inviting an impeachment trial for himself due to his continuance and expansion upon Bush’s illegal and unconstitutional policies. That would include looking into the “Secret Energy Task Force” and the decision to invade Iraq.
In theory, I am 100% behind the idea he should have been brought to trial. It would have been justice. It would also have brought down the previous and current administrations. And what’s the number one rule of sociopaths/politicians?
Cover. Your. Own. Ass. First.
As a matter of political machinations though?
A trial was NEVER going to happen . . . and you know it. It was never going to happen because of the political boondoggle created when Bush suspended habeas corpus, ordered torture and decided to invade a country that did not attack us out of a personal profit motive. The only way for it to have happened is if men of principle had taken office after Bush. That’s what many people thought they were getting. Instead? We got Mr. “Let’s Look Forward” and “I can kill American civilians without due process” instead.
Never forget the GOP drove the car off the cliff, but it was the DNC that set it on fire.
A pox on both their corrupt houses.
Aspiration is a fine thing, but don’t overestimate its pragmatism when you are dealing with sociopathic politicians and industry. Machiavelli wouldn’t be surprised by this outcome. I’m not sure why you are.
Bob,Esq.
I agree with you more than you can imagine in this matter….but could you tone it down… Suffice it to say….some do not understand or care about the rule of law….Its what I want when I want it now mentality….its sad when those same people are in positions of power like a Prosecutor and/or a Judge….sometimes it hard to tell the difference…..
“Dang, Bob. bin Laden made public statements to the effect he was at war with the west and its culture.”
We’ve discussed this; nations declare war, not people.
“I think I have seen all the videos and recorded statements he released. He took full credit for the 9-11 attacks. In the law enforcement sense, that constitutes a confession.”
Then how is it that Colon Powell and Tony Blair never produced the cases they promised? If it was that sealed tight, how is it that the FBI never listed bin Laden as wanted for 9/11?
“This is not a matter of ipse dixit.”
So you say.
“It was straight from his own mouth.”
And you can prove that how?
“He was the guy who created al Qaeda. If anyone needed killing, it was ObL.”
What maxim of law did you apply to reach that conclusion?
“I do believe we had as much on ObL as we did on Yamamoto.”
Isn’t it great that the law doesn’t care what you ‘believe?’
Imagine executing people based solely on what someone believed? Reminds me of the film “Death Wish” where the protagonist KNEW who the guilty were.
“When you are at war, declared or not, the usual rules of due process do not apply.”
And so, in order to avoid the inconveniences of due process, simply re-tool your rhetoric to define your mission in terms of warfare.
War on terror?
Why not war on crime? Think of the money we could save by declaring defendants prisoners of war.
It goes without saying that “war is terrible.” And who would quibble with the SEAL team’s response when faced with a “kill or be killed” decision? But the “slippery slope” issues and questions remain…
Killing of bin Laden: What are the consequences?
by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/02/bin_laden
excerpt
But beyond the emotional fulfillment that comes from vengeance and retributive justice, there are two points worth considering. The first is the question of what, if anything, is going to change as a result of the two bullets in Osama bin Laden’s head? Are we going to fight fewer wars or end the ones we’ve started? Are we going to see a restoration of some of the civil liberties which have been eroded at the altar of this scary Villain Mastermind? Is the War on Terror over? Are we Safer now?
Those are rhetorical questions. None of those things will happen. If anything, I can much more easily envision the reverse. Whenever America uses violence in a way that makes its citizens cheer, beam with nationalistic pride, and rally around their leader, more violence is typically guaranteed. Futile decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may temporarily dampen the nationalistic enthusiasm for war, but two shots to the head of Osama bin Laden — and the We are Great and Good proclamations it engenders — can easily rejuvenate that war love. One can already detect the stench of that in how Pakistan is being talked about: did they harbor bin Laden as it seems and, if so, what price should they pay? We’re feeling good and strong about ourselves again — and righteous — and that’s often the fertile ground for more, not less, aggression.
And then there’s the notion that America has once again proved its greatness and preeminence by killing bin Laden. Americans are marching in the street celebrating with a sense of national pride. When is the last time that happened? It seems telling that hunting someone down and killing them is one of the few things that still produce these feelings of nationalistic unity. I got on an airplane last night before the news of bin Laden’s killing was known and had actually intended to make this point with regard to our killing of Gadaffi’s son in Libya — a mere 25 years after President Reagan bombed Libya and killed Gadaffi’s infant daughter. That is something the U.S. has always done well and is one of the few things it still does well. This is how President Obama put it in last night’s announcement:
The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.
Does hunting down Osama bin Laden and putting bullets in his skull really “remind us that we can do whatever we set our mind to”? Is that really “the story of our history”? That seems to set the bar rather low in terms of national achievement and character.
In sum, a murderous religious extremist was killed. The U.S. has erupted in a collective orgy of national pride and renewed faith in the efficacy and righteousness of military force. Other than that, the repercussions are likely to be far greater in terms of domestic politics — it’s going to be a huge boost to Obama’s re-election prospects and will be exploited for that end — than anything else.
That is why war is terrible, anon nurse. Some nations have not even signed on to the Geneva Conventions. However, I always thought “rules of war” was an oxymoron.
General Patton pretty well summed it up when he made a speech to his troops, telling them, “It is not your job to die for your country. Your job is to make the other poor son of a bitch die for his.”
When that SEAL teem went into the bin Laden compound, they had no idea what they would find in the way of arms or defenses. And they had no intention of dying for their country if they could help it.
“When you are at war, declared or not, the usual rules of due process do not apply.” –OS
And therein lies the rub. Almost anything goes… And it’s a very slippery slope.
Dang, Bob. bin Laden made public statements to the effect he was at war with the west and its culture. I think I have seen all the videos and recorded statements he released. He took full credit for the 9-11 attacks. In the law enforcement sense, that constitutes a confession. This is not a matter of ipse dixit. It was straight from his own mouth. He was the guy who created al Qaeda. If anyone needed killing, it was ObL. I do believe we had as much on ObL as we did on Yamamoto. The main difference between the two men, IMHO, is that Yamamoto was a warrior with a sense of dignity and honor. ObL, not so much.
When you are at war, declared or not, the usual rules of due process do not apply. I still say the better analogy is the same as the rules that apply to a Marine sniper.
OS,
When the government doesn’t make any case at all, all that’s left is ipse dixet and say so. So how is it that you don’t find it amazing that a story, backed by no evidence other than ipse dixet & say so, is permitted to supplant the system of due process?
OS,
The reason for due process has nothing to do with whether bin Laden was a citizen or not. And unlike Yamamoto, there had been no case made against bin Laden.
The man was shot based on a myth constructed by the government; not a factual case. No matter how much you color the myth in an attempt to justify the killing, you’re simply attempting to cover for your lack of integrity to principle.
Bob, as you know, the Constitution of the US is not operant in a foreign country and bin Laden was not a US citizen. In other words, during an armed conflict, you do not have to read the Miranda warning to a sniper target. Also, bin Laden was a declared enemy of the US and an enemy combatant fugitive.
Even if bin Laden had been a US citizen, it was still appropriate to deal with him just as if he were a heavily armed fugitive holed up in a house, engaged in a standoff with the police. They shoot people like that every once in a while here in the states.
Personally, I saw him more like the guy who is a target of a Marine sniper. Military tactics dictate that if you can “cut off the head of the snake,” you do it. Just as we went after Admiral Yamamoto in 1943.
Just imagine how convenient crime fighting becomes when you can replace due process with myth making.