The Desert of the Real

Yes, yet another no-knock warrant gone wrong. At least this time nobody died. Unlike the recent raid in a small california town. Not a peep on national news for these stories of course, but I’m sure we’ll hear about the successful part of the raid, full of proud smiling district attorneys and police chiefs.

It positively disgusts me that we have swat teams across america constantly risking, and sometimes taking, the lives of american citizens in bogus raids. They are terrorizing US citizens and for what? 3oz of marijuana? Are the people they’re after that big of a threat? No, of course not, they just don’t want them to flush the evidence. I understand that. I also understand that people make mistakes. However, in the case of these (in my opinion) unconstitutional no-knock warrants they are more of a danger to innocent american citizens than the drug addict they are after is.

Apparently Thomas Sowell is getting into the game. I swear, I am so sick of this ridiculous scenario and its absurd unproven and unstated assumptions as a foundation stone to try and convince people with poor reasoning skills to support this ridiculous policy. The republican groupthink on this issue is staggering to behold. And so much worse than the liberals. I expect them to behave that way.

I am going to say something about his post. This, right here, is what today’s education (I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Hays was given a public education—but even if not, it obviously was insufficient in the area of history and political theory ) brings us. His position, and the position of many others like him, demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding in regards to why we have rights and protections specifically recognized in the constitution. In particular, here, the sixth amendment.

Why do we need this protection? Honestly, how much difference is there between a terrorist and his activities, and a kidnapper with a kid hidden away who will die if we don’t find out where she is? Why is it ok to torture the terrorist and not the kidnapper? Honestly, many people today would say it should be ok to torture a kidnapper for such information.

The reason we have this rule is to protect innocent people. What Hays assumes in his article is that we can know that a person is guilty to sufficient extent to warrant such activity. This is not reality. In reality we can’t know. If we did, we wouldn’t need to torture for the information because we’d already have it, if we had enough to incriminate him that far.

Worse, it is unlikely our government would bother even being sure a particular suspect was actually planning something. Hays apparently (from his own article) doesn’t even care if american citizens are rounded up and shipped off to be interrogated. Given his attitude, I’m sure he is aware that includes two who were recently released after months of interrogation from Guantanamo bay because 8 years ago they wrote satire about the middle east’s politics. Yeah, I’m so glad to be protected from that.

The bottom line is, we can’t know. We can’t know that kidnapper is actually who we think he is. The same goes for the terrorist. We have all had situations where timing made something look really bad. We are all familiar with cases of mistaken identity. This is why we recognize such protections in our constitution.

Incidentally, I know there are some who would say that the bill of rights does not apply to non-americans. I would again point out that the Bill of Rights is a recognition of basic rights that belong to ALL people. Not just to americans. They are not granted by the constitution, they are recognized as PRE-EXISTING by the constitution. Take a moment and go read the bill of rights. Look for where, anywhere, it says that it is restricted solely to the people of the united states. It says only “the people”, and (specifically in the sixth) “the accused”. If the government is allowed to define who is and who is not protected by the constitution then we are all in trouble.

In a way, I am thankful for Hays’ post. It gives a vivid warning of the consequences of not giving our children a quality education in history. I pray it will be heeded.

Update: I have replied again to this post, including a more fleshed out version of this post.

Here’s the reply I posted to his entry here. If it isn’t clear from the content, no I do not intend on replying. It is quite apparent that he has convinced himself of this to a point where he will not be instructed on this point. At least not by me, and I have better things to do with my time.

No, what is morally and biblically reprehensible is your unteachable spirit, your engrained habit of making unreasoning assertions.

Wow. That’s quite an assertion to make. On what basis am I to bow to your philsophical ramblings? While (to my recollection) I have not made chapter and verse references my position here is well reasoned and based squarely on God’s word, and the view of Man it puts forward. It is based on the teaching of both Christ and Paul in regards to how we should act as Christians and what should govern our behavior. It is based on a full belief in the sovereignty of God.

You have countered with fearmongering, and vain philosophy, arguing from a position of fear to support your need to interrogate and even torture prisoners to provide your own safety and the safety of your family, and I am the one who is unteachable? You may not accept my reasons, but they are there. You may not agree with me, and that’s fine too.

And if you should happen to find an actual, exegetically based, argument from scripture that indicates we should, as christians, be advocating that our government torture people to provide our safety then I will be instructed by scripture.

But no, I will not simply bend on your say so. Honestly, I think perhaps you need to check your ego a little.

This has been thrust into the news repeatedly of late. Particularly since the elections in November, and Pat Robertson’s subsequent pronouncement.

This is another one of those unbelievably frustrating topics. The only reason intelligent design exists, if we are honest, is to find a way to get God back into public schools. This is a big campaign with a lot of Christians. They think if we can just get “God back in” that things will be ok in schools again. They work really hard to deny that ID == God when pushing it into school systems. They proclaim loudly that ID just means there’s someone or something bigger than us at work.

Yet what happens when you reject intelligent design? Well, you’re rejecting God, according to Pat Robertson, and others. To throw out this watered down candy-coated version of creationism is now the equivalent of rejecting the Almighty Sovereign God of the universe.

Well, aside from the inconsistancy, I find it frankly repugnant to have the two equated. You will not find many more firmly in the 7-day creationist camp than me, and I flatly oppose Intelligent Design. At first blush this might sound inconsistant, but understand that I’m obviously not opposed to the underlying precepts of ID. I’m just opposed to the whole movement to try and slide some form of God in the back door.

This whole thing is rooted in the anemic version of Christianity that the church (in large part) posesses today, versus the power of the Gospel as revealed in the scriptures. See, God needs our help. God’s word and responsible believing parents aren’t sufficient. We need some (likely agnostic or atheistic) public school teacher to advocate some hackneyed version of our beliefs to our children. And what exactly is it this is going to gain us?

Worse, (little side trip here) we then have Pat Robertson telling them since they have “rejected God” they shouldn’t turn to Him if they have a natural disaster. Even granting the most gracious reading of these words to really mean if, and not a threat that God is going to send one, it is still reprehensible. Indeed, Scripture teaches that one of the primary reasons God sends disasters is to turn people to Him. Yes, it’s hypocrisy, but before God opened our hearts, were any of us different? Did we not all reject God in our daily lives? Even if this was a rejection of God, it would be no different from any other.

Let me ask you, is the reverse true? If they had accepted ID, would they have accepted God? Would they then, as unregenerate men and women, have had a right to call out to God in a time of need, despite remaining in full rejection of God in every other aspect of their lives?

This is a big ugly mess. The reality is, that under our constitution, public schools should probably not be teaching religion. If we were still a federal system, and states actually ran public schools, then yes, they could. They could teach it all they want, and I would be fine with that. However, Washington really runs our PS, and that means that teaching christianity violates the establishment clause. (At least, it does under our current interpretation of the first amendment, and good luck convincing anyone that this was not its original intent.)

I’m sure at least some of you are objecting that secular humanism is a religion too. After all, it tries to answer the three big questions right? I agree. So where does that leave us? Some christians would say this leaves us with a need to challenge the basic idea, and make them represent us too. To just ignore the establishment clause, and change it from no establishment, to providing establishment of all. Except, you know they’re not going to be pleased when the pagans, the wiccans, the muslims, and even the satanists all decide their personal views should be aired in science class too.

Yes, that would be wonderful wouldn’t it? No, I say that indicates the utter waste that is our public school system. Our government was never setup to be able to constitutionally run a national school system. It is counter to the very underlying principles of our constitution and system of government. This is why all of these sorts of issues are so hairy.

Then, you get news reports like this one with the vatican practically going open theist. Again, I don’t equate ID with God, or even with Creationism, but these releases seem to be more of an attack on creationism than on ID. They may look like they’re aimed at ID but they’re really tearing at the underpinnings of creationism itself. So here we are in yet another place defending Christianity against the church claiming to be the only true church. Some days I wonder how their apologists can make that claim with a straight face.

Rep John Murtha has spoken out against the war in Iraq, and has sufferred the usual consequences. I must admit I am not aware of who this man is, or much about him beyond what I heard in passing on CNN a few minutes ago, and the above linked article on Fox News. Given that I haven’t heard of him before, I assume their claim that he shuns publicity is at least somewhat accurate.

And, given that his own party is distancing themselves from him, I’d say his opinion is probably his own, and not (as the GOP would like us to believe) a product of left-wing groupthink. It’s not a hatred of america, a desire to run, or anything of the sort. It seems to flat out be a recognition that we are not making progress, and while it’s good to always drive to win, sometimes you have to cut your losses. You’d think we would’ve learned this lesson in Vietnam.

Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: “I like guys who’ve never been there that criticize us who’ve been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.”

Obviously, I don’t believe one has to have been there to have valid beliefs and opinions regarding the war. However, I also don’t believe all opinions are created equal, and as a seemingly reasonable man who has been there his opinions should at least be respected, even if not agreed with.

Instead, what we have is an instant backlash from the usual suspects, and a ready campaign to destroy his credibility to prevent him from influencing others. In particular, by linking him with Michael Moore. This is one of the stupidest things they’ve done so far. In just a couple minutes of research I can’t imagine how anyone could believe those two would even be on speaking terms, let alone share similar ideology. I have a bad feeling that instead of damaging Murtha’s credibility that it is going to actually give a little to Michael Moore. I can’t imagine a worse outcome.

It’s interesting to note the language used by the GOP:

“They want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world,” Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said.

In recent days, President Bush and other top administration officials have lashed out at critics of the war and have accused Democrats of advocating a “cut and run” strategy that will only embolden the insurgency.

Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism “one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.”

Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, said Murtha’s call for withdrawal was “reprehensible and irresponsible.”

“It shows the Democratic Party has chosen a policy of retreat and defeatism which will only encourage the terrorists and threaten the stability of Iraq,” Granger said.

There were other quotes on CNN from various members of the GOP, which I couldn’t quote verbatim, but which oddly sound the same. Amazing how our reps from Texas, and the high ranking few who all likely have close access to Bush all seem to be saying the same thing.

It disgusts me. It is stiff-necked pride, plain and simple. He is not interested in reason, he is not interested in discussion. He cares not whether there is a reasonable chance of success, or whether we’ll be continuing to lose american men and women daily for the next 20 years. President Bush desperately needs someone up there close to him to give him a good hard smack and bring him back to reality. Even if he decided Murtha was wrong, this MO of not listening to any criticism, constructive or not, and leaping straight to absurd allegations and credibility assassination in an effort to undercut any and all opposition is not the way to handle it.

Rep John Murtha has spoken out against the war in Iraq, and has sufferred the usual consequences. I must admit I am not aware of who this man is, or much about him beyond what I heard in passing on CNN a few minutes ago, and the above linked article on Fox News. Given that I haven’t heard of him before, I assume their claim that he shuns publicity is at least somewhat accurate.

And, given that his own party is distancing themselves from him, I’d say his opinion is probably his own, and not (as the GOP would like us to believe) a product of left-wing groupthink. It’s not a hatred of america, a desire to run, or anything of the sort. It seems to flat out be a recognition that we are not making progress, and while it’s good to always drive to win, sometimes you have to cut your losses. You’d think we would’ve learned this lesson in Vietnam.

Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: “I like guys who’ve never been there that criticize us who’ve been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.”

Obviously, I don’t believe one has to have been there to have valid beliefs and opinions regarding the war. However, I also don’t believe all opinions are created equal, and as a seemingly reasonable man who has been there his opinions should at least be respected, even if not agreed with.

Instead, what we have is an instant backlash from the usual suspects, and a ready campaign to destroy his credibility to prevent him from influencing others. In particular, by linking him with Michael Moore. This is one of the stupidest things they’ve done so far. In just a couple minutes of research I can’t imagine how anyone could believe those two would even be on speaking terms, let alone share similar ideology. I have a bad feeling that instead of damaging Murtha’s credibility that it is going to actually give a little to Michael Moore. I can’t imagine a worse outcome.

It’s interesting to note the language used by the GOP:

“They want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world,” Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said.

In recent days, President Bush and other top administration officials have lashed out at critics of the war and have accused Democrats of advocating a “cut and run” strategy that will only embolden the insurgency.

Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism “one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.”

Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, said Murtha’s call for withdrawal was “reprehensible and irresponsible.”

“It shows the Democratic Party has chosen a policy of retreat and defeatism which will only encourage the terrorists and threaten the stability of Iraq,” Granger said.

There were other quotes on CNN from various members of the GOP, which I couldn’t quote verbatim, but which oddly sound the same. Amazing how our reps from Texas, and the high ranking few who all likely have close access to Bush all seem to be saying the same thing.

It disgusts me. It is stiff-necked pride, plain and simple. He is not interested in reason, he is not interested in discussion. He cares not whether there is a reasonable chance of success, or whether we’ll be continuing to lose american men and women daily for the next 20 years. President Bush desperately needs someone up there close to him to give him a good hard smack and bring him back to reality. Even if he decided Murtha was wrong, this MO of not listening to any criticism, constructive or not, and leaping straight to absurd allegations and credibility assassination in an effort to undercut any and all opposition is not the way to handle it.

If you read this blog, my guess is you probably are about as likely to watch The West Wing as I am. However, it seems we should’ve made an exception, and now I’m going to have to go looking for a copy of that episode to watch. There’s a good summary and analysis here.

Thanks to The Agitator for the link.

The Agitator has a post up now about this story in the baltimore sun.

It’s a good story to point out because it demonstrates the same issues with police power and the kind of laws they choose to enforce as the drug war does, with a lot less controversy to cloud people’s thinking. In this case, it’s gambling.

The confusion within law enforcement was shared by those who participated in the poker tournament. They said yesterday that they thought the event at the club was legal because organizers said proceeds would go to charities, a common misinterpretation of local law, which prohibits poker regardless of whether it is played to raise funds for charity.

As Balko so eloquently said:

Good to know the police of Baltimore are using their guns, authority, and power to prevent grown-ups from voluntarily wagering their money on games of chance.

By the way, the Maryland Lottery would like you to know that the Mega Millions jackpot is up to $225 million. The Lotto is at $ 2 million.

Caught up in the poker craze? Then don’t forget the Maryland Lottery’s scratchers! The state of Maryland’s got yer’ World Championship Poker, Poker Showdown, and Royal Flush, among about a dozen other card-themed games.

But as I was saying, it’s good to know the police of Baltimore are using their guns, authority, and power to prevent grown-ups from voluntarily wagering their money on games of chance.

So I ask you, why are so many people are also willing to put their faith in the police to protect them from rape, robbery, assault, and murder? Between the drug war and this it is quite apparent that police are far more willing to (and likely are ordered to) spend their time on luctrative cases than they are on preventing real crime that has actual victims.

I have already addressed the issue of torture several times on this blog. I have tried, repeatedly, to communicate why we shouldn’t allow this kind of activity period, but in particular why we shouldn’t give this kind of power to our government. Repeatedly people who should know better have defended the practice, and our government’s ability to use it wisely.

Indeed, the debate rages even know in Congress, as they attempt to pass a law banning the use of torture. Consider the words of our "esteemed" president and vice president:

Cheney:

Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to GOP senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on torturing terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, according to participants in a closed-door session.

Cheney told his audience that the United States doesn’t engage in torture, the participants added, but that the administration needs an exemption from legislation banning “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment in case the president decides it is necessary to prevent a terrorist attack.

And Bush:

“There’s an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again,” Bush said. “So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law.”

He declared, “We do not torture.”

Interesting. Then I’m curious, why are you pushing so hard for an exemption to it? If you’ll do so under the law, then why do you object to our strengthening the law against torturing POWs?

And of course, most of the people on the other side of this issue from me tend to argue for the idea that the government would only use torture on the worst of the worst. The people who could truly give us information. And of course that means they trust the governments judgement in those matters. This would be the same government referred to here:

Badr Zaman Badr and his brother Abdurrahim Muslim Dost relish writing a good joke that jabs a corrupt politician or distills the sufferings of fellow Afghans. Badr admires the political satires in “The Canterbury Tales” and “Gulliver’s Travels,” and Dost wrote some wicked lampoons in the 1990s, accusing Afghan mullahs of growing rich while preaching and organizing jihad. So in 2002, when the U.S. military shackled the writers and flew them to Guantanamo among prisoners whom Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared “the worst of the worst” violent terrorists, the brothers found life imitating farce.

For months, grim interrogators grilled them over a satirical article Dost had written in 1998, when the Clinton administration offered a $5-million reward for Osama bin Laden. Dost responded that Afghans put up 5 million Afghanis—equivalent to $113—for the arrest of President Bill Clinton.

“It was a lampoon … of the poor Afghan economy” under the Taliban, Badr recalled. The article carefully instructed Afghans how to identify Clinton if they stumbled upon him. “It said he was clean-shaven, had light-colored eyes and he had been seen involved in a scandal with Monica Lewinsky,” Badr said.

The interrogators, some flown down from Washington, didn’t get the joke, he said. “Again and again, they were asking questions about this article. We had to explain that this was a satire.” He paused. “It was really pathetic.”

Sure, they didn’t torture them. However, they did take them from their homes, their jobs, and their families, detain them as “enemy combatants” and held them imprisoned in a foreign country, while repeatedly interrogating them about satire they had written years ago. If they had a free hand to interrogate how they wished, and the satire had been maybe just a little more biting, do you think they wouldn’t use torture?

On what basis, given what we see they are already willing to do today?