Bill told Chloe "I need my best people looking for Jack". Makes alot more sense than "working" for JackComment Posted By Paul On 25.04.2007 @ 14:28
I notice that no one has answered my question in post 7. I may not have asked it in the correct form. Can an order by the President of the United States be considered an unlawful order? As I recall military people are not required to obey an unlawful order. The follow on question is could the order to launce a nuclear attack be condisered unlawful in this case?Comment Posted By Paul On 29.03.2007 @ 14:07
Can the President give an unlawful order. Surely the President cannot order a nuclear strike on a country because he did not like their last vote in the U.N. and expect it to be carried out. There must be protocols for launcing a nuclear strike.
In this instance there does not seem to be any reason why the submarine captain would not surface to receive the message and inquire about the reason for launcing the attack. Preumably the country that is the target is not a serious threat to the submarine.Comment Posted By Paul On 27.03.2007 @ 12:44
I was under the impression that standard legal boilerplate for such contests includes the statement "open to legal US residents 18 years of age and older". It seems highly unlikely that the station would hold a contest without laying out the basic ground rules regarding contest entry, disqualification, use of likenesses for publicity, etc. In that case, I don't understand what the legal basis for this lawsuit is.Comment Posted By Paul On 26.01.2007 @ 17:41
Is this guy like the greatest satirist since Johnathan Swift, or is he really the frigginâ€™ stupidest man alive
While I wouldn't call him the greatest satirist since Johnathan Swift, I definitely took those remarks as satire. His comments were too perfectly stupid to be real.Comment Posted By Paul On 18.01.2007 @ 18:31
there is no doubt that executive power had been curtailed drastically in the 25 years since Watergate â€“ and not always to the advantage of the government or the country
That may be true, but I can't think of a single instance where the country has suffered by limiting executive power. For me, Watergate showed what happens when the president believes he is above the law, and all the legislation that has followed to prevent that from occurring again has been in the interest of maintaining the republic and prevent it from turning into a dictatorship. (Even with this clear and benevolent intent, presidents have still fought tooth and nail for their own slice of dictatorship.)
Again, show me the other side of this. How is curtailing executive power ever been a bad thing?Comment Posted By Paul On 18.01.2007 @ 18:29
IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO TODAY, WHY DIDNâ€™T THE ADMINISTRATION COME UP WITH THIS â€œINNOVATIVEâ€ ARRANGEMENT WITH THE FISA COURT FROM THE BEGINNING?
I'm glad you asked, because this is probably the most important thing to understand about the Bush Administration. Their objection to FISA had absolutely zero to do with the onerous process of going through the FISA court, or their inability to protect Americans in so doing. Rather, the objection was purely about creating a precedent where the president is above the law. This also holds true for the signing statements, abandoning habeus corpus, using torture, and other prime elements of the Bush Doctrine.
This is dangerous for all citizens, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on. Personally, I wouldn't want a Democratic president who stands above the law any more than a Republican one. Because the fact is, the reason why our country is arguably great is because we traditionally have held the rule of law over the rule of men. Bush's radical agenda seeks to end that. He needs to be opposed at every turn.Comment Posted By Paul On 18.01.2007 @ 15:00
"Here is a plain and factual rebuttal to Paulâ€™s full of crap comment"
Promises, promises. Perhaps a a little reading would benefit you as well, starting with a dictionary, so as to be able to distinguish "fact" from "assertion". Perhaps then you might move on to the early history of Germany's aggression prior to WWII, when Hitler literally gambled his country's fate on whether France, Great Britain, et al., would respond militarily to the annexation of the German-speaking parts of Czechoslovakia.
"repeat: there is no comparison between WWII, ( which would have been finished by now) and this quagmire"
Repeat all you like- while you may be used to repetition being equated with truth, I am not. "Finished by now", do you say? Resistance against the Allied occupation continued for at least a few years after active hostilities ceased, and in some cases went on for decades.
"One tyrrant had the most powerful army in the world ( that would be Hitler)
the other had no navy, no airforce, no satellites, 35 years old out of date equipment and no weapons of mass destruction and no real ability to hurt anyone beyond his borders ( that would be where we are now)"
Hitler could have been defeated easily early in his conquests had the tru threat he represented been appreciated. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20, and all that. Just like hindsight is 20/20 with respect to WMD.
"My suggestion for Paul- have you served your country yet? Log onto GoArmy.com and find a recruiter"
Ah, the chickenhawk argument. I never get tired of that one. Might I suggest a corollary to Godwin's Law, that when the chickenhawk argument is used, it automatically forfeits one's position? Although it is ironic that I am invoking Godwin's Law when I myself brought Hitler into the mix (although not to cast aspersions at bibbleman, but merely to make a historical analogy).Comment Posted By Paul On 9.01.2007 @ 00:21
If I may rewrite bibbleman's substance-free pantsload to provide some historical context:
[begin parody, my rewrites in brackets]
here â€™s aquestion for you Rick?
letâ€™s see, [Germany] is a sovereign nation
that have elections
they elected leaders
and their leaders have decided to [invade Poland, conquer Europe, wipe out the Jews, and spread Naziism worldwide]
so what right do we have to dictate to another sovereign nation that they may not [do this?]
that said, on the [418,500]th death in this invasion and [$2 trillion later (http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm)], why does every wingnut think we have the right to tell other nations what to do, and arenâ€™t we in enough shit already that we must go kick another hornets nest with [Germany and Japan]?
havenâ€™t we pissed the world of enough?
donâ€™t we have enough problems over here at home to take care of to be obsessing about every dictator that doesnâ€™t like us?
perhaps if we had a competetnt foreign policy in place we wouldnâ€™t have half the country willing to put tehir [own Japanese citizens in internment camps just because some Democrat in the White House overreacted.]
hereâ€™s another question for you
is every single thing that [Great Britain] does the right thing?
Not much rewriting required at all, actually. On a related note, I am continually amazed by the utter lack of historical awareness demonstrated by so many that comment on this and other topics. I am no historical scholar, but neither am I blind to the lessons of history, especially when that history occurred a scant 60-odd years ago. I suppose it is true- we are awash in information these days, but precious little wisdom to be found (really, I don't mean that to sound as conceited as it probably does).Comment Posted By Paul On 8.01.2007 @ 15:53
A few more points from someone else who has served.
1. Does Watada have the right to civil disobedience? Does he have the right to use his actions to make a political statement when those actions violate an oath he made to obey his CinC? Rick seems to be saying he has most of the same rights as any other citizen, including making a statement by civil disobedience. He says,"...we can also recognize that in a democratic, civil society, this is an honorable means to disagree with the government" I would say he gave up that right and there is nothing honorable in his actions. In raising his right hand during enlisment and swearing to defend the Constitution and obey all lawfull orders, he gave up his right to this kind of action.
2. Even if he does have the right to civil disobedience, Rick seems to be taking two opposing sides. He defends Watada's right to civil disobedience, as long as he is willing to face the consequences of his actions. "In this sense, Watadaâ€™s dissent may be seen as an honorable means to live up to his own personal code of moral conduct â€“ as long as he is willing to accept the consequences of his dissent." But then when the military takes action that will cause Watada to face those consequences, Rick accuses them of making an example of him. If Watada gets to decide where he will serve and even if he will serve, where does it end? Will everybody in the military get the same deal? I am sure any reasonable person will agree that this is a recipe for disaster. Of course the military is making an example of him. They have to. If they don't, then many more will start dictating to the military under what conditions they will serve, or not.
3. Watada uses the justification for his actions that this is an illegal war, which was the same justification used by the Viet Nam era objectors. Putting aside the argument regarding the legality of the current conflict, anybody joining the military post Viet Nam has know you run the risk of being sent to fight in a war you don't agree with. But unlike the Viet Nam era, this is an all volunteer force. If you can't live with fighting an unpopular war, don't sign up. If you didn't think it through before signing up, tough luck, suck it up and deal with it. But signing up and then deciding on your own that a war is illegal and you won't serve, demonstrates either a poor grasp of historical reality or a lack of morality.
I swore the same oath Watada swore. There were no conditions attached to that oath. Watada's CinC has given him a lawfull order and he has refused to carry it out. His violation of his oath is immoral and there is no honor in his civil disobediance. He is a disgrace to the uniform and his actions are an insult to all who have served honorably. The military has not only the right, but the obligation to prosecute him for his actions.Comment Posted By Paul On 29.12.2006 @ 13:16