So ACORN has a few bad nuts and we should stop giving them any federal money? How about Blackwater, I mean Xe, and other benefactors of federal money that have done some seriously F'd up stuff?

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:I thought that common knowledge was no felony can be sent to arbitration.
Rapes in Iraq are not crimes in the US, so, you can't follow that chain of responsibility. As far as I'm aware Iraq provided full criminal immunity to contractors at the time, so it wasn't even a crime in Iraq.


It depends on the circumstances. I for example was born overseas on a US military base within another country. However as my father was in the US military, and I was born on a US base (legally considered US soil), then I am a natural born citizen, as if I was born within the border of the USA in any state. US diplomatic compounds are also considered US soil. As a result anyone on such grounds are subject to US law. When they step beyond those grounds, especially in wartime... they are in the employ of the US military and are bound by the same laws which govern the troops. Murder is murder. Rape is rape. This isn't the first time crimes have been prosecuted in US court that took place overseas.

With the same logic, a crime committed on the high seas beyond the borders of the US or any nation would not be prosecutable. This is not the case. The are a lot of complexities involved of course, but i can guarantee a gang rape or murder spree won't go unpunished in such a blatant rape case as this.

Why the Republicans are fighting it? Lobbying money. KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater (conveniently renamed for those with memory issues) may think they are immune from the law. Lawmakers may have told them they are immune. But that does not make it so.

A high ranking official may get away with it. But a bunch of raping low-levels will face a judge. The public won't allow for it.

Oh no, no, no! You cannot delete your comment, NR! I have saved it for posterity!

>> ^NetRunner:
Okay, here's my reaction to each:
1. We support the union of all United States citizens for a greater good on the basis of the right of national and global self-determination.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Does this mean the US is going to take a role of non-interference in the operation of state governments? Foreign governments? It'll let people rope off an acre of land and self-determine it into an independent country?
2. We support equality of rights for the United States citizens in its dealings with other nations.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Anyone can speak on the behalf of the US government if they want to? Individuals can invade countries, whilst flying the American flag? The US will protect a US citizen's rights as we define them, even if they move overseas?
3. We support land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Same thought as gwiz. Either this is silly and obvious, or a declaration to the world that we will take over as much land as we feel we need to feed and house our people.
4. We propose that the United States shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
This one just sounds a little too hard edged. Something more like "The United States government will attempt to foster an environment of high employment and economic growth, and provide for the livelihood of those who are unable to provide for themselves" sounds a lot better to me, since it leaves open the right questions for debate (things like what constitutes a growth environment, and what does "unable" or livelihood mean), while foreclosing questions I think shouldn't be up for debate (i.e. is it the responsibility of the government of the United States to care about economic issues and hardships at all?).
5. We propose all citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
I like equal rights. What's equal duty mean? We all work the same hours a day? All pay the same amount in taxes? We all need to take our turn in the barrel? Everyone needs to do 2 years public service?
6. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
No, I don't like this one at all. I think everyone has a god-given right to be lazy. I don't like the idea of making it a core principle that one must not "clash with the general interest", either. I think the "general good" should be protected (e.g. environmental protection law, FDA regulations on food and drugs, general police protection, regulating the financial sector, etc.), but I don't think the way to do that is to say people can't act against the general interest at all.
7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.
I don't know what this means. I suspect they're not talking about welfare, but things like interest, generic capital gains, rent collection, etc.
I find this idea appealing on a visceral level, but I don't ultimately believe this is the way to address the issue of the idle and clearly undeservedly rich (like Paris Hilton).
8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.
Another one I find appealing on a visceral level. I think this is easier said than done though. On the one hand, I think it's a bit unavoidable that someone will make a profit off wars, even if it's just the funeral service, and we shouldn't necessarily begrudge every ounce of it. I also think a lot of the profit being made now is because we keep giving our military a huge amount of leeway to buy unproven, expensive toys that have questionable battlefield value (e.g. the F-22).
The old-fashioned meaning of this is that someone is intentionally starting or prolonging a war just to make a profit. I think this is frankly what the "neoconservatives" are really about. They don't really give a shit who we fight, they just want us eternally at war so their defense contractor friends will stay constantly flush with cash, which they can freely donate to their reelection campaigns.
However, if we could clearly identify illicit profit, I'd have no qualms with confiscating it, and donating it to humanitarian relief organizations working the battlezone.
9. We support the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
No need to nationalize them, just bust 'em up.
10. We support profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about profit-sharing with all employees, no matter how lowly. I agree, and why focus only on the "large industrial enterprises"? The mechanics would need to be worked out, and for some people I think they'd rather have stability in their income than having it tied to profit, but I think everyone should have the opportunity to opt into a profit-driven payscale if they want it, even if they just sweep the floors.
11. We support the extensive development of insurance for old age.
We've already done it -- Social Security and Medicare. I want Medicare for All now.
12. We support the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of national and municipal orders.
I like supporting the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, though I don't see why this would require nationalizing malls as dedicated workers for the state...
Seems to me that there are more effective, and less heavy-handed ways to lower barriers for entry to small businesses.
13. We support a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
No. I'm curious what "ground" rent is, but no.
14. The United States must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation (through the study of civic affairs). We propose the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
I think this one is worded badly. "The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life." sounds kinda scary. "Education should be focused on the requirements of practical life." sounds better, since it doesn't talk about how people must be brought into line.
I believe the "education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State" is otherwise known as a scholarship, and I'm all for governments levying taxes to beef them up.
If anything, this one just seems a bit modest and unfocused. I agree that "practical life" leaves a bit too much leeway, I'm thinking it would be things like civics, personal finance, career planning, etc., and not things like shop class (though shop class is good too).
15. The nation must ensure that health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Some of this exists already (child labor laws), and compulsory gymnastics and sports...for kids going to school (at least in my K-12 it was). I'm not for making exercise/sports mandatory for adults, but I think we'd do well to have some types of diet and exercise programs covered by our health care plans.
16. We propose the Federal abolition of any militia except as implemented by Congress.
The way this is written, it almost sounds like they don't even want the states to run their own militias, and I certainly don't think those should be dismantled. I don't even have an issue with the idea of private military companies like Blackwater, as long as they aren't corrupt and evil like Blackwater. I would want a fat regulatory agency looking over their shoulder, with backing from the US military, but I wouldn't necessarily want to abolish them outright.
I don't care for the people who call themselves militias but are really talking about plotting a revolution against the government, or fighting off the IRS with assault rifles. Those people are criminals, not militias.
17. To put the whole of this program into effect, we support a strong central power for the United States Federal Government; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by Congress in the United States.
I'm not sure what half of this one is supposed to mean. Personally, I think anyone on the left talking about the size of government in the current political era is making a mistake, and adopting the preferred framing of the right.
It's good policy vs. bad policy. Government that believes it bears an important duty to the people vs. government that wants to prove government can't do anything right. Empathy vs. selfishness. We're in this together vs. You're on your own.

1. We support the union of all United States citizens for a greater good on the basis of the right of national and global self-determination.
What do they actually propose here? Isn't the UNITED states already a union? Or do they want to change something?

2. We support equality of rights for the United States citizens in its dealings with other nations.
Seems reasonable, but this is not really something that can be settled internally in the US, the "other nations" would have to agree as well. Internally, of course, anyone should be allowed to trade internationally as they please, not some people favored.

3. We support land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Either this is a painfully obvious point, or something more sinister is behind it. "We will grow stuff and farm it", well sure, knock yourselves out. "We will clear nature preserves and such to increase our use of the land" Less good. "We will only use what land is necessary to support the people." Better. A matter of interpretation.

4. We propose that the United States shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
A job at all costs? Jobs can't just be created out of thin air - there has to be a reason for them. Welfare is better than a job that has no value.

5. We propose all citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
Well, duh.

6. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
Yes and no. I agree that the first duty of a citizen should be to work, but this is indirectly determined by the fact that if you don't work--> you don't earn--> you die. Whether or not something "clashes with general interest" is harder to define, because plenty of work has not been in the gneral interest, but have been useful in the end anyway. Say, stem-cell research. No matter how many people want to ban it should not matter, because it is indeed useful to the survival of the human race.

7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.
End welfare? Sure, but then you'll have to make up dummy-jobs, which in the end is welfare anyway. I can see the value in getting cheap labor this way, but I think this is worse than just plain welfare until a real job comes around.

8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.
End wars. Sounds noble enough. Confiscating war profits sounds an awful lot like theft though. What needs to be done, is make sure that there is fair dealings in companies that provide services for war - the corruption that makes sure that companies like blackwater and halliburton gets all the deals must be quelled. A company exists in part to create profit for its people - if no profit should be made on war, then the state should make its own stuff. It is the one "company" that shouldn't make a profit.

9. We support the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
Uhm, what!? I think this is a bad idea. Oversight, bureaucracy, conflicts of interest are all stuff I can see arising for this. If something has gotten big, it's because people have bought their product. We shouldn't penalize a good company just because it's big.

10. We support profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
Again, what the hell is this? "Oh poor apple, I see you haven't made as much profits as us.. here, have some money." - microsoft. That's just stupid.

11. We support the extensive development of insurance for old age.
Fair. Pension should be maintained for those who need it.

12. We support the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of national and municipal orders.
I don't like the concept of classes - mostly because I don't think it's all that applicable anymore. People should get payed for their abilities + supply/demand of the job. And again they want to take the "evil big stores" and turn them into nice little stores. It's a dream world, Neo. They are not big because they are evil, they are big because they sell a good product. If you want to "level the playing field", then give incentives to make jobs locally and penalize foreign jobs (like sweatshops and such).

13. We support a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
"Expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation".. get the fuck out of here. This land is my land, that land is your land♫ let's keep it that way. If there is a dire communal need for some of MY land, then you can well enough buy it from me, so I can move somewhere better.

14. The United States must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation (through the study of civic affairs). We propose the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
Education must be reformed, I agree, but this is not the way to do it. "Practical life"? There are plenty of things that ought to be taught that have nothing to do with practical life, biology, chemistry, mathematics (beyond the basics), history - we can't all go to knitting and shop-class. And in the higher educations the subjects become even more esoteric. What's "practical life" for some, is not at all for others. Hell, specialization is the cornerstone of education.

15. The nation must ensure that health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Mandatory fat camps! Heh, I do think that gymnastics and sports should be mandatory in school, but that's it. English is mandatory too, why not some for of physical activity? I don't think that adults should be compelled to do sports directly though - that's their choice. I would rather that incentives were made to be healthy, or maybe certain penalties for being grossly unhealthy.

16. We propose the Federal abolition of any militia except as implemented by Congress.
Of course. There should only be one army. If you want to make "Bob's army" you can go off and make "Bob's Country" and do it.

17. To put the whole of this program into effect, we support a strong central power for the United States Federal Government; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by Congress in the United States.

This seems to be against what's been said earlier. Now they want to MAKE corporations? Confusing. Don't they trust the states to carry out the legislation?

I didn't say I believe it. I said I would entertain it. There is a major difference.

If you honestly believe that Dick Cheney, as vice-president, was completely innocent of all wrong doing, I can't have a conversation with you.

The man's actions for the last eight years need to be carefully scrutinized. He ought to be investigated for all sorts of things. No, I don't think you could ever pin something like "he knew about flight 77 in advance" on him. I think you could get him for having assassination squads (i.e. Blackwater/Xe services), I think you can get him for authorizing illegal torture, I think you can get him for lying to the american people about justification for war (and the manufacturing of evidence to support his case), I think you might even be able to get him for profiteering if you look closely enough.

The man is a criminal, and has been since he was riding Tricky's Dick. This is, of course, not to mention the other people I think should be investigated carefully, i.e. Richard Perle, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and of course the baby Bush.

The real danger of conspiracy theories is the bias their prevalence puts against skepticism of official stories. Fear of association with crazies prevents the rational questioning of our public servants' activities. Therein lies the real danger.

Sorry, I don't know how I missed that vid being posted. Thanks for linking. I usually try to do that if I know of a link

In reply to this comment by EndAll:
props to Scahill for calling him out

full interview with him here

props to Scahill for calling him out

full interview with him here

look up:
"the three mistakes of paul bremer"
then think for a second that blackwater is not under the UCMJ.
they are paid for by tax dollars.
ran by a fundamentalist christian,or so purported.
whose executives read like a who's-who from the PNAC.
who believes he is on a mission from god.
to kill muslims.
the list goes on..but yeah..its pretty sickening.

In reply to this comment by mxxcon:
i wasn't commenting so much on atrocities they've done but the fact that the whole organization from the very bottom to the very top is structured to encourage and cover up these crimes.
and the fact that US Gov't still support this organization
and the fact that there is no measurable public outcry against blackwater or gov't officials that are not acting stop this.

this country needs some of that sense of responsibility and shame that is so common in japan's society.
90% of our elected officials should commit public seppuku.

The whole organization from the very bottom to the top is structured to encourage and cover up these crimes? You mean like how the American government itself tries to cover up things like the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, or it's use of biological weapons in Korea (those brave few who protested were condemned were and persecuted: McCarthyism at its finest during the height of the cold war), or tried to cover up the whole Iran-Contra affair (Where the US sold Iran weapons and gave the funds to the Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua, who used American funded weapons to commit countless atrocities) or the army's use of torture in the current Iraqi war?

And sense of shame and responsibility that is common in Japan's society? You mean like how the doctors of Unit 731 who performed live vivisection on prisoners and civilians with no anesthesia, who viewed non-japanese civilians as nothing better than "logs" to test on, and how these doctors were not charged with war crimes and went back into Japanese society and lead successful careers afterward? And how so many Japanese people, including influential politicians are vocal deniers of war crimes committed by the Japanese army (that whole section was censored out of Japanese school curriculum)? Or like how Issei Sagawa, who murdered and ate Renee Hartevelt, a Dutch exchange student in Paris, is a celebrity and a free man in Japan, and makes a living from his infamy? Shame and denial are not mutually exclusive.

I'm saying this kind of corruption and coverup, and this kind of public apathy, is hardly unique to America, and is hardly a new phenomenon. It's ubiquitous. Seriously, Blackwater is one of the least things to be ashamed about in our history.

My cousin in currently a sniping instructor for Blackwater (or whatever the new company name is), but he has served 6 or 7 deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan for the company. I've never been comfortable with the fact that he is essentially a mercenary, but god I hope he wasn't involved in some of this stuff. He's a good person and certainly this is not indicative of all Blackwater soldiers, but "mob mentality" and positions of authority over other humans has the power to corrupt anyone (the Stanford Prison Guard Experiment, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment).

>> ^mentality:
>> ^mxxcon:
stuff like this makes me lose my faith in this country

What, you think that you can have a war without unnecessary civilian casualties? What makes these mercs different from the government who started this war in the first place? With a pull of the trigger or a stroke of the pen the end result is the same: innocent people are going to die. You think it makes any difference to the victims' families whether their loved ones were intentionally murdered by blackwater mercs or died as collateral damage from the American army?
In fact, this is much less worse than the bombing campaigns in Korea, Vietnam, or WWII, or America's use of bio and nuclear WMDs. I'd rather get shot to death than to die in a fiery hell from napalm, or rot to death from the bubonic plague, or get my face melted off from a nuclear blast and then die from leukemia years later.


i wasn't commenting so much on atrocities they've done but the fact that the whole organization from the very bottom to the very top is structured to encourage and cover up these crimes.
and the fact that US Gov't still support this organization
and the fact that there is no measurable public outcry against blackwater or gov't officials that are not acting stop this.

this country needs some of that sense of responsibility and shame that is so common in japan's society.
90% of our elected officials should commit public seppuku.

>> ^quantumushroom:
War crimes and rogue behavior are nothing new, they happen in every war. Of course, acting like a barbarian outside of the rules of war is what terrorists aka "insurgents" do.


You're saying that Americans have committed war crimes that were within the rules of war? You just blew my mind, dude.

>> ^mxxcon:
stuff like this makes me lose my faith in this country


What, you think that you can have a war without unnecessary civilian casualties? What makes these mercs different from the government who started this war in the first place? With a pull of the trigger or a stroke of the pen the end result is the same: innocent people are going to die. You think it makes any difference to the victims' families whether their loved ones were intentionally murdered by blackwater mercs or died as collateral damage from the American army?

In fact, this is much less worse than the bombing campaigns in Korea, Vietnam, or WWII, or America's use of bio and nuclear WMDs. I'd rather get shot to death than to die in a fiery hell from napalm, or rot to death from the bubonic plague, or get my face melted off from a nuclear blast and then die from leukemia years later.

>> ^Skeeve:
Anyone know what was meant by the comment "the illegal M-249"? How is one of the most prolific weapons in the US arsenal illegal? Almost every 8-man squad has one.


It's illegal for civilians. Like, completely. It wasn't manufactured early enough even for registered models to be grandfathered in. For a civilian to own one, it has to be disabled and unable to fire.

Your video, Blackwater Hired War Criminals, Child Prostitutes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.