Betsy's Page

Thursday, July 21, 2005

The Anchoress has a story of an interesting Englishman and his attitude towards the enemy in World War II. You have to read the whole thing but it involves an Englishman paying for the defense of a Nazi war criminal to make sure that he had adequate legal representation.

We have a tradition of that in American history. After five Bostonians were shot by British soldiers in 1770, American propagandists promptly named this the "Boston Massacre" and churned out propaganda to churn up even more hatred of the British throughout the colonies. The soldiers were put on trial for murder and a young Massachusetts lawyer stepped forward to defend them. He was John Adams. and he wrote in his autobiography how he told the representative from the British captain about his belief
that Persons whose Lives were at Stake ought to have the Council they preferred: But he must be sensible this would be as important a Cause as ever was tryed in any Court or Country of the World: and that every Lawyer must hold himself responsible not only to his Country, but to the highest and most infallible of all Trybunals for the Part he should Act. He must therefore expect from me no Art or Address, No Sophistry or Prevarication in such a Cause; nor any thing more than Fact, Evidence and Law would justify.
What does this have to do with the war on terror? Just as the Anchoress says, these are privileges that we can offer to the enemy when the fighting of the war is over. But while that fighting goes on, let's not have any weakening of our resolve and support of the troops by conducting endless investigations of their conduct at Guantanamo. We've already had several groups go down there and take a look and come back without any real complaints about how we're treating these guys. Let's leave it at that instead of having investigation upon investigation.

On a similar note, I hear that there are going to be more pictures from Abu Ghraib released this week due to an ACLU FOIA request. Several liberal blogs are all excited about this. Is that what we really need now? Read some of the comments over at Talk Left.

If the public doesn't care that Saddam's rape rooms have turned into American rape rooms, I'll seriously consider eating a bottle of sleeping pills.

You can blame the "leftist fever swamp" for the pictures but the fact is that they reflect reality in Iraq. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change that. The Iraqis already know what's happening in Abu Ghraib, and it's not because of the ACLU, for christ's sake.
Or this:
[disclaimer: saddam was a bad, bad man]
Iraq has more civilian deaths/day than happened under the previous regime.

Iraq has less infrastructure than they had under saddam. (e.g. sewage disposal, electric generation, open schools, women's rights, border security ... etc.)

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Since we illegally invaded (i.e. w/o UN authorization), we have created a training ground and recruitment center for terrorists.

A large part of that terrorist recruitment is because the us has tortured, raped, and murdered iraqis.

None of the above causes can be attributed to what some so quaintly call the 'left.'
Or read what Up Against the Wall says,[Oops, it's Up Against the Law, not Wall. Sorry.]
This is sure to bring the whole controversy back to the frontpages. It is also seems to be sure to inflame the sentiments against the U.S., and rightfully so. I imagine heads will roll (but hopefully only figuratively).

But it's important to let the light shine in, in my opinion. The outrage and anger will surely be justified, and it's not my place to tell the rest of the world how it should be manifested. But you can bet your ass it's going to manifest. Look out.
Can you hear the glee about inflaming sentiments against the U.S. and how justified UAtL thinks it is. What a truly despicable wish for our country. And how deluded they all are to believe that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were standard operating procedure for our military.

Hasn't the point been made over and over and over again about Abu Ghraib? Why continue to inflame opinion when those responsible have been tried and punished? Aren't those who are all excited about these pictures just reveling in making the United States and, by extension, Bush look bad? Right now, I'm with The Anchoress's Englishman.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:04 PM 0 comments

Comments:

The Anchoress has a story of an interesting Englishman and his attitude towards the enemy in World War II. You have to read the whole thing but it involves an Englishman paying for the defense of a Nazi war criminal to make sure that he had adequate legal representation.

We have a tradition of that in American history. After five Bostonians were shot by British soldiers in 1770, American propagandists promptly named this the "Boston Massacre" and churned out propaganda to churn up even more hatred of the British throughout the colonies. The soldiers were put on trial for murder and a young Massachusetts lawyer stepped forward to defend them. He was John Adams. and he wrote in his autobiography how he told the representative from the British captain about his belief

that Persons whose Lives were at Stake ought to have the Council they preferred: But he must be sensible this would be as important a Cause as ever was tryed in any Court or Country of the World: and that every Lawyer must hold himself responsible not only to his Country, but to the highest and most infallible of all Trybunals for the Part he should Act. He must therefore expect from me no Art or Address, No Sophistry or Prevarication in such a Cause; nor any thing more than Fact, Evidence and Law would justify.

What does this have to do with the war on terror? Just as the Anchoress says, these are privileges that we can offer to the enemy when the fighting of the war is over. But while that fighting goes on, let's not have any weakening of our resolve and support of the troops by conducting endless investigations of their conduct at Guantanamo. We've already had several groups go down there and take a look and come back without any real complaints about how we're treating these guys. Let's leave it at that instead of having investigation upon investigation.

On a similar note, I hear that there are going to be more pictures from Abu Ghraib released this week due to an ACLU FOIA request. Several liberal blogs are all excited about this. Is that what we really need now? Read some of the comments over at Talk Left.

If the public doesn't care that Saddam's rape rooms have turned into American rape rooms, I'll seriously consider eating a bottle of sleeping pills.

You can blame the "leftist fever swamp" for the pictures but the fact is that they reflect reality in Iraq. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change that. The Iraqis already know what's happening in Abu Ghraib, and it's not because of the ACLU, for christ's sake.

Or this:

[disclaimer: saddam was a bad, bad man]
Iraq has more civilian deaths/day than happened under the previous regime.

Iraq has less infrastructure than they had under saddam. (e.g. sewage disposal, electric generation, open schools, women's rights, border security ... etc.)

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Since we illegally invaded (i.e. w/o UN authorization), we have created a training ground and recruitment center for terrorists.

A large part of that terrorist recruitment is because the us has tortured, raped, and murdered iraqis.

None of the above causes can be attributed to what some so quaintly call the 'left.'

Or read what Up Against the Wall says,[Oops, it's Up Against the Law, not Wall. Sorry.]

This is sure to bring the whole controversy back to the frontpages. It is also seems to be sure to inflame the sentiments against the U.S., and rightfully so. I imagine heads will roll (but hopefully only figuratively).

But it's important to let the light shine in, in my opinion. The outrage and anger will surely be justified, and it's not my place to tell the rest of the world how it should be manifested. But you can bet your ass it's going to manifest. Look out.

Can you hear the glee about inflaming sentiments against the U.S. and how justified UAtL thinks it is. What a truly despicable wish for our country. And how deluded they all are to believe that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were standard operating procedure for our military.

Hasn't the point been made over and over and over again about Abu Ghraib? Why continue to inflame opinion when those responsible have been tried and punished? Aren't those who are all excited about these pictures just reveling in making the United States and, by extension, Bush look bad? Right now, I'm with The Anchoress's Englishman.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:04 PM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Thursday, July 21, 2005

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Thursday, July 21, 2005 The Anchoress has a story of an interesting Englishman and his attitude towards the enemy in World War II. You have to read the whole thing but it involves an Englishman paying for the defense of a Nazi war criminal to make sure that he had adequate legal representation. We have a tradition of that in American history. After five Bostonians were shot by British soldiers in 1770, American propagandists promptly named this the "Boston Massacre" and churned out propaganda to churn up even more hatred of the British throughout the colonies. The soldiers were put on trial for murder and a young Massachusetts lawyer stepped forward to defend them. He was John Adams. and he wrote in his autobiography how he told the representative from the British captain about his belief that Persons whose Lives were at Stake ought to have the Council they preferred: But he must be sensible this would be as important a Cause as ever was tryed in any Court or Country of the World: and that every Lawyer must hold himself responsible not only to his Country, but to the highest and most infallible of all Trybunals for the Part he should Act. He must therefore expect from me no Art or Address, No Sophistry or Prevarication in such a Cause; nor any thing more than Fact, Evidence and Law would justify. What does this have to do with the war on terror? Just as the Anchoress says, these are privileges that we can offer to the enemy when the fighting of the war is over. But while that fighting goes on, let's not have any weakening of our resolve and support of the troops by conducting endless investigations of their conduct at Guantanamo. We've already had several groups go down there and take a look and come back without any real complaints about how we're treating these guys. Let's leave it at that instead of having investigation upon investigation. On a similar note, I hear that there are going to be more pictures from Abu Ghraib released this week due to an ACLU FOIA request. Several liberal blogs are all excited about this. Is that what we really need now? Read some of the comments over at Talk Left. If the public doesn't care that Saddam's rape rooms have turned into American rape rooms, I'll seriously consider eating a bottle of sleeping pills. You can blame the "leftist fever swamp" for the pictures but the fact is that they reflect reality in Iraq. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change that. The Iraqis already know what's happening in Abu Ghraib, and it's not because of the ACLU, for christ's sake. Or this: [disclaimer: saddam was a bad, bad man] Iraq has more civilian deaths/day than happened under the previous regime. Iraq has less infrastructure than they had under saddam. (e.g. sewage disposal, electric generation, open schools, women's rights, border security ... etc.) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Since we illegally invaded (i.e. w/o UN authorization), we have created a training ground and recruitment center for terrorists. A large part of that terrorist recruitment is because the us has tortured, raped, and murdered iraqis. None of the above causes can be attributed to what some so quaintly call the 'left.' Or read what Up Against the Wall says,[Oops, it's Up Against the Law, not Wall. Sorry.] This is sure to bring the whole controversy back to the frontpages. It is also seems to be sure to inflame the sentiments against the U.S., and rightfully so. I imagine heads will roll (but hopefully only figuratively). But it's important to let the light shine in, in my opinion. The outrage and anger will surely be justified, and it's not my place to tell the rest of the world how it should be manifested. But you can bet your ass it's going to manifest. Look out. Can you hear the glee about inflaming sentiments against the U.S. and how justified UAtL thinks it is. What a truly despicable wish for our country. And how deluded they all are to believe that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were standard operating procedure for our military. Hasn't the point been made over and over and over again about Abu Ghraib? Why continue to inflame opinion when those responsible have been tried and punished? Aren't those who are all excited about these pictures just reveling in making the United States and, by extension, Bush look bad? Right now, I'm with The Anchoress's Englishman. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:04 PM 0 comments Comments: The Anchoress has a story of an interesting Englishman and his attitude towards the enemy in World War II. You have to read the whole thing but it involves an Englishman paying for the defense of a Nazi war criminal to make sure that he had adequate legal representation. We have a tradition of that in American history. After five Bostonians were shot by British soldiers in 1770, American propagandists promptly named this the "Boston Massacre" and churned out propaganda to churn up even more hatred of the British throughout the colonies. The soldiers were put on trial for murder and a young Massachusetts lawyer stepped forward to defend them. He was John Adams. and he wrote in his autobiography how he told the representative from the British captain about his belief that Persons whose Lives were at Stake ought to have the Council they preferred: But he must be sensible this would be as important a Cause as ever was tryed in any Court or Country of the World: and that every Lawyer must hold himself responsible not only to his Country, but to the highest and most infallible of all Trybunals for the Part he should Act. He must therefore expect from me no Art or Address, No Sophistry or Prevarication in such a Cause; nor any thing more than Fact, Evidence and Law would justify. What does this have to do with the war on terror? Just as the Anchoress says, these are privileges that we can offer to the enemy when the fighting of the war is over. But while that fighting goes on, let's not have any weakening of our resolve and support of the troops by conducting endless investigations of their conduct at Guantanamo. We've already had several groups go down there and take a look and come back without any real complaints about how we're treating these guys. Let's leave it at that instead of having investigation upon investigation. On a similar note, I hear that there are going to be more pictures from Abu Ghraib released this week due to an ACLU FOIA request. Several liberal blogs are all excited about this. Is that what we really need now? Read some of the comments over at Talk Left. If the public doesn't care that Saddam's rape rooms have turned into American rape rooms, I'll seriously consider eating a bottle of sleeping pills. You can blame the "leftist fever swamp" for the pictures but the fact is that they reflect reality in Iraq. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change that. The Iraqis already know what's happening in Abu Ghraib, and it's not because of the ACLU, for christ's sake. Or this: [disclaimer: saddam was a bad, bad man] Iraq has more civilian deaths/day than happened under the previous regime. Iraq has less infrastructure than they had under saddam. (e.g. sewage disposal, electric generation, open schools, women's rights, border security ... etc.) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Since we illegally invaded (i.e. w/o UN authorization), we have created a training ground and recruitment center for terrorists. A large part of that terrorist recruitment is because the us has tortured, raped, and murdered iraqis. None of the above causes can be attributed to what some so quaintly call the 'left.' Or read what Up Against the Wall says,[Oops, it's Up Against the Law, not Wall. Sorry.] This is sure to bring the whole controversy back to the frontpages. It is also seems to be sure to inflame the sentiments against the U.S., and rightfully so. I imagine heads will roll (but hopefully only figuratively). But it's important to let the light shine in, in my opinion. The outrage and anger will surely be justified, and it's not my place to tell the rest of the world how it should be manifested. But you can bet your ass it's going to manifest. Look out. Can you hear the glee about inflaming sentiments against the U.S. and how justified UAtL thinks it is. What a truly despicable wish for our country. And how deluded they all are to believe that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were standard operating procedure for our military. Hasn't the point been made over and over and over again about Abu Ghraib? Why continue to inflame opinion when those responsible have been tried and punished? Aren't those who are all excited about these pictures just reveling in making the United States and, by extension, Bush look bad? Right now, I'm with The Anchoress's Englishman. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:04 PM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment