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
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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
The rebels have come up with a plan. They will paint the roofs of all rebel vehicles pink.
How to avoid friendly fire? Libya rebels try pink
Vehicles painted after NATO mistakenly hit two convoys, killing 18
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42496271/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Gates: U.S. troops could stay in Iraq for years
http://www.stripes.com/news/gates-u-s-troops-could-stay-in-iraq-for-years-1.140502
JBH: “Perhaps some people want to be free from our freedom?”
—
I’m getting pretty sick of it myself…
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?
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.
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).
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
Fool
““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!
I think the correct word would be…Whoops!
Being an intergovernmental military alliance means never have to say sorry.
Military Intelligence
Central Intelligence
I can’t decide which is the bigger oxymoron.
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…..