We Love Syria
Those good-for-nothing Syrians. Supporters of the Iraqi insurgents. Funders of Hamas. Backers of Hezbollah. So despicable that we refuse to have anything to do with them. Won’t even talk to them.
Unless, that is, we want them to torture somebody for us.
We’ve known about “extraordinary rendition” — the outsourcing of torture by the Bush administration to authoritarian regimes for some time now.
But for the first time we have a vivid, detailed report on this barbaric practice from a Western governmental source. A Canadian judical report lays bare the case of Maher Arar, a a Muslim Canadian citizen.
The Royal Mounties mistakenly suspected the computer engineer of being connected to terrorists and asked U.S. officials to put him on a watchlist. In September 2002, while waiting to change planes in New York, Arar was snatched into U.S. custody. And then in the best of traditions of Argentine and Chilean dictatorships, he was “disappeared” into a clandestine gulag. Says the Washington Post:
He was held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was beaten, forced to confess to having trained in Afghanistan — where he never has been — and then kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months before he was released, the Canadian inquiry commission found.
Let’s translate. Not on some remote mountainous battleground, not in the netherworld of a lawless Pakistani province, but right in the middle of a New York airport, a Canadian citizen was kidnapped by American agents. Instead of being subjected to a proper police investigation, instead of being tried in a court of law for supposed illicit association, he was instead packed off to our good friends in the Jordanian monarchy. And from there, delivered directly to the same torturers in Damascus that we denounce on a daily basis.
A Candian legal panel investigating the matter says “categorically there is no evidence” that Arar did anything wrong or was a security threat.
Oops, the Mounties made a mistake. Oops, the CIA made a mistake. And oops, sorry those awful Syrians roughed you up a tad.
What can we conclude from this? That the Bush push to overturn the Geneva Conventions by legalizing CIA torture is really a clever move to further isolate Syria?
September 19th, 2006 at 12:17 am
Hey, did anyone see the Amazing Race? I’ll bet this season is going to be really great.
Anyone else noting a distinct lack of outrage about, let alone awareness of, these latest developments? It just seems like it’s not on the radar at all, or am I missing something? Hillary? Anyone? Well, at least we can usually count on him: http://tinyurl.com/qhton
I guess it can happen here.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Yeah, but if he had been a terrorist and subjected to due process we might have missed key information about a bomb about to go off under John Yoo’s mother’s bed. It’s the One Per Cent Doctrine. If there’s even a One Per Cent chance that the Bush Administration isn’t crazy as bat shit, we need to just keep them on the job. The Democrat’s can’t be relied upon to crush children’s testicles if the need arises.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:35 am
Among all the shouting on the pundit-laden talk shows (which I can now mercifully ignore since my cable service was cut off), it would be nice to hear someone ask the torture-defenders if they are willing to accept these oops! moments in exchange for more security for themselves. Is this not the point? I am afraid; I want safety; therefore, torture people until you find the perpetrator. Just don’t tell me about it (I’ll be in church anyway). How abysmally and banally repugnant.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:36 am
I agree. It was disgraceful. There’s no excuse for this.
I can’t help noting the Niagara of salivation in certain circles over this outrage as contrasted with silence about the murder of an elderly nun in Somalia or the continued assaults and threats on the life of the 13-year-old son of Theo van Gogh.
If it fits the concept that the West should not defend itself, pump it up and delight in it. If it exemplifies the serious dangers we face, ignore it.
September 19th, 2006 at 7:09 am
Grumparoo, if you are going to be sarastic and rationalize our goverments worst behavior, fine, but how bout a bit of stright shooting with the smartassary? Name your “certain circles.”
September 19th, 2006 at 7:35 am
I can’t get past the coffin-sized dungeon part. For 10 months. It leaves me speechless.
September 19th, 2006 at 7:37 am
Just a thought experiment – if this happened to an Arab American would the vast majority of society take his side? In Canada, where this story has been big since Arrar was still imprisoned, the entire country has been begging for an explanation and solidarizing with Arrar. Maher now lives in the interior of BC, and has been welcomed by that homogenous mountain commnity. Would that happen, say, in Butte?
I’m not saying Canadians are better people. I am saying that we are less prejudiced. Also, the Mounties made a few mistakes – they failed to let (then) PM Chretien know about this insubordination. Just one of many ways US intelligence agencies manipulate our politics (another is the funding of Michael Ignatieff)
September 19th, 2006 at 7:41 am
All the Clinton lovers should know this: the “extraordinary rendition” program started under Janet and Bill.
September 19th, 2006 at 7:46 am
I don’t rationalize it. It’s disgraceful, as I said, disgusting and shameful, which I also said.
“Certain circles”? The usual suspects–that part of the left that opposes a sober analysis and resistance to of the jihadis and always sees the speck in American eyes and ignores the two-by-four threatening to come upside our head.
Wall, while we’re at it, tell me . . . should the Dutch police protect the orphan Lieuwe Van Gogh? Do you condemn shooting nuns, or only when it’s done by right-wing forces in Central America? Does the burning of churches (Orthodox, not Catholic, btw) in Palestine, Nigeria, Indonesia, offend you? How about gunfire at the Oslo synagogue?
September 19th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Grumpy – if you can tell me just how I can influence the folks in Somalia who murdered an elderly nun, let me know. I find these extremist, fundamentalist nutcases raging over insults to Mohammed disgusting. About as disgusting as it gets. I’m also not a fan of the Pope, but he was merely exercising his right to verbal diaharrea and obcurantism. He didn’t shoot anybody. So there’s no “moral equivalence” between his quoting some deservedly obscure papist hypocrite and the outright religious thuggery you cite. Disgraceful, but I sort of think we all know that. I could be wrong, but I assume that we’re all on that page that rejects mobs of fundamentalists with pitchforks murdering Christians or Jews or the Infidel Du Jour. I also remember that the murder of Theo Van Gogh hardly passed without comment. Nor the fatwah against Rushdie. Unfortunately there’s a difference – the guys who pulled this one off that Marc cites work for me. IMHO my responsibilities to make noise are somewhat more compelling or I’m complicit in some sense. If I were a Muslim, I hope I’d feel the same sense of urgency to clean my house of thugs, even if I were offended by the pope quoting a Catholic medievalist dissing the foundations of my faith as some sort of witness for religious tolerance (which is bizarre, when you think about the peculiar history involved).
As for your own natterings about “if it fits the concept that the West should not defend itself” or the notion that anyone “delights in it”, you lose me. I guess I’m out of touch with the liberal mainstream that delights in stories of torture or believes in collective suicide. Otherwise it sounds a little like some version of one of those excuses you said there’s no room for.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:07 am
“Do you condemn shooting nuns…”
My only recourse as a member of The Left, considering the multicultural nature of the assailants and the fact that the Pope is involved, is to quote Jack Benny when a gunman asked for his wallet, “I’m thinking. I’m thinking.”
Okay, you’ve got me. Shooting nuns isn’t acceptable.
But please. Enough of these scathing interrogations that shake the foundations of my liberal beliefs. I haven’t had my coffee.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Grumpy Old Man
As I recall, Marc came out loud and clear on this blog site against the suppression of the cartoons that caused riots in the Muslim world and had no sympathy for the violence. He had plenty of supporters here. Are we now required to comply with some sort of Fairness in Blogging Doctrine? Do we need to constantly balance our outrage? That could get tiresome.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:13 am
“Grumpy – if you can tell me just how I can influence the folks in Somalia who murdered an elderly nun, let me know.”
I’ve got an idea: Let’s torture a Somalian who had nothing to do with it.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:19 am
I’d like to apologize for my “Bushism” in calling the insane scumbags who shot a nun “folks”. When I read MB’s quoting my sarcasm, that benign noun struck me as profoundly inappropriate. Also, obviously, none of this is actually humorous, but sometimes bleak humor is about all I can muster in the face of multiple outrages, including the sickening stuff Grumpy cites.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Grumpy, you’re entirely full of shit. (Not to put too fine a point on it.)
When thugs and psychopaths murder the innocent, the sane among us assume that the evil is self evident to all.
When our government participates in evil and tries to call it the rule of law, those of us who care about 1. the United States of America, 2. the rest of humanity, need to fucking say something.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:31 am
P.S., Marc, when I was reading this stuff last night, I failed to really grasp the angle you’ve flagged—that Arar was taken to SYRIA. That would be the same Syria that our government couldn’t possibly speak to during the “diplomatic†negotiations around the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and the war with Hezbollah. The hypocrisy of this element of this story alone ought to leave everyone with any sense at all breathless with fury.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:54 am
“the sane among us assume that the evil is self evident to all”
Maybe you’ve hit on an important distinction there…I don’t want to be overly harsh with Grumpy, who I agree is kinda deep in the crapola here but hardly nuts. He tried for an even hand, however heavy. But the wingnuts like Malkin, Coulter, LGF, etc. who go ballistic every time the by-now familiar gangs of foriegn extremists go to their by-now familiar extremes, but consider it treason to question BushCo’s concept or conduct of the GWOT, aren’t really “normal” people. They’re flaming “political” narcissists, do-it-yourself media whores and/or crackpot ideologues hawking sleazy merchandise. Without a steady supply of cheap thrills, they’re nothing. They thrive on divisiveness and negativity and are pretty much shooting blanks when it comes to in-depth or compelling national security strategy. “This is World War 3″ doesn’t cut it. Remember the endless admonitions about “good news from Iraq” ? In fact, they routinely confuse their hyperventilation and rhetoric with analysis. Not sane terrain.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Reg, thanks for the measured words. I genuinely think I’m losing it around these last few days’ worth issues. MT was bouncing off the ceiling. I’m now bashing clean through the lath and plaster.
I’ll try deep breathing. Or something.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Do they still have those places you can go work out on a trampoline. Might do the trick. Also, a bicycle helmet would be prudent when checking the blogs today.
I’m also at wit’s end and would engage in my usual cursing and gnashing of teeth, but I’m trying to cut back on the trash mouth a bit (if only to maintain the full effect when required) and I recently spent too much money on root canal and crowns to put any of my molars at risk.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
By the way, anyone else out there want to join me in de4mandeing that the UC Board of Regents fire John Yoo? Given the Ward Churchill precedent its only fair.
The Jack Benny line (“Your money or your life”) reminds me of a joke by Mort Sahl. He told audiences back in the darkest days of the Cold War (you know that time when we had no worries according to Yoo know who) the US policy was straitforward. Every time the Russians threw an American in jail we retaliated by throwing an American in jail here!
September 19th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
jcummings Says:
September 19th, 2006 at 7:37 am
Just a thought experiment – if this happened to an Arab American would the vast majority of society take his side?
—————————————————-
American right-wingers only protect white Christians (they better not be libural) and Jews (they better not be libural) who kill darkies.
September 19th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
“Just a thought experiment – if this happened to an Arab American would the vast majority of society take his side? In Canada, where this story has been big since Arrar was still imprisoned, the entire country has been begging for an explanation and solidarizing with Arrar. Maher now lives in the interior of BC, and has been welcomed by that homogenous mountain commnity. Would that happen, say, in Butte?”
Last I checked Canada, too, if governed by a set of war mongering reactionaries, n’est pas? Cummings in many ways canada may be a more toerant and progressive place than the United States, socialised medicine comes to mind, but this mythology that exists over there is IMHO not helpful and a bit snotty as well. By the way youve got the Arar stary wrong. When Mahar Arar returned the press continued to report fraudulant leaks (coming from CSIS in my estimation) which connected him in some shoddy way to terror cells. He was unable to find any work in Ontaria, suffered deprression from his expereinces In syria as well as the isolation brought on in Canada, was shunned by the muslim communitty who wwere fearful of him and ultimately packed his bags and left for BC. In other word there are some significant gaps in your little Canada is paradise fairy tale
September 19th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
why am i awaiting moderation
September 19th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
I noticed that Juan Cole threw in the towel today. On his blog he said that was not going to come up with any more “Ten point Plans” for Iraq. Too much is happening and nothing is good. Besides, I think he realizes that Bush is around for another two plus years and nothing will change. Except maybe war with IRAN.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Hello everyone! Very new to the site. I find it very informative and I’ve always been an avid reader of Marc’s columns in the LA Weekly. Everyone here seems to be very intelligent and well-informed and passionate, all of which I find to be very good qualities – I don’t in any way consider myself an expert on any of this stuff, although I do have my opinions. But I would like to make this comment: the majority of folks here seem to gain great delight out of name calling, trashing and generally delivering insulting remarks as if they qualified as intelligent discussion. Again, I don’t know the history of this board, who started what, who are the trolls and the instigators and what not, but I will offer this response: I doubt if any of you would be indulging in the same behavior if you were looking each other straight in the face. Because I know if anyone ever spoke to me the way that some of you speak to each other, they’d get a taste of the knuckle sandwich. So I posit this to all of you: why reduce what is almost always intelligent, important and provocative discussion to a third grade brawl at recess? Best, Colin the Quiet.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
I’ve been protesting the shooting of nuns for nearly twenty-six years.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
American right wingers protect Jews? Maybe neocons, but I doubt that George Allen who responded viscerally and angrily to suggestions that he has a Jewish grandparent….In Spike Lee’s excellent recent film, a Nazi Collaborator is seen to have won awards from B’nai Brith. Being pro-Israel gives the right wing Anti Semites a pass in Jewish leadership circles – and in turn, right wing Anti-Semites concentrate their rancour with coded language about cosmopolitans and Hollywood.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
I was new like you once Colin. Jim the Gentleman. Calm, considerate, moderately in the middle. I was forced to join a gang
for self protection, after getting mugged a few times from both sides.
I joined the Raging Rightwing Nut Jobs. It’s improved my street fighting skills and I can now take a knuckle sandwich standing up.
Trust me, it’s better this way. Never a dull moment. Welcome to the rumble.
.
September 19th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Jcummings is right on the spot with this one. His comment reminds me that the ADL saw it fit to shower Silvia Berlusconi with praise and address the organisation, without a peep about his history of anti semitism. Simply put they are more concerned with doing anything possible, including resort to lies and slander, to protect Israel from legitimate criticism. As for anti semitism they could care less explaining why they frequantly turn a blind eye. one thing though, what fiom was that cummings. Ive seen most of spikes work and that definately doesnt strike a bell.
September 19th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Its his last one – The Inside Man – a Hollywood type film, but one of his better more recent works.
September 19th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
There was a major peep from non-establishment – and even some mainstream Jewish groups when ADL awarded Berlusconi. I know a lot of people were talking about it at the time. A whole bunch of conservative economists wrote a huge one page ad in the NY Times protesting it. Still, I’ve heard Zionist leaders absolve anti-semites of this variety, because the real danger is from “the Arabs.”
No one is talking about how Neo-Nazis won elections in Germany yesterday.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
This is why I wrote, Jews/Israelis “who kill darkies.”
Right-Wingers were creaming themselves when Israel was bombing Lebanon.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson who said we need some revolution every once in a while? I always thought this was a bit of over-done rhetoric, but I’m so pissed about renditions, and torture, and all of it, I’m starting to agree. Anyone have any thoughts about why this seems to be generating such a tepid response? I don’t watch much TV so am I missing something there?
What I find most interesting about the commentary on this is the intense navel gazing I heard on NPR today. The Democrats were talking about how embarrasing this was for the Republicans to be engaged in such a public fight between the pers. and the Senate leaders just weeks before the mid-term elections. As if anyone gives a shit. They’re so ensconced in their cocoons up there that they actually think a spat over language in a bill is something the “American people” are getting upset about. And why Dick Durbin chose that immaterial tidbit to talk about rather than hammering on about the moral vacuum created by the presiden’t torture policy, I’ll never know. Disgusting.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
A point that might seem pedantic to some, but is important.
The emperor Manuel Palaiologos (Palaeologus) whom Pope Benedict quoted was a Byzantine. After 1054, the Byzantines were not in communion with Rome, and their Orthodox successors still aren’t.
No Catholic he.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
While we are on the subject of unconstitutional actions, has anyone other than me noticed the very muted reaction to the military coup in Thailand so far from world leaders? Perhaps they are still studying the situation. Of course, America’s support for Mushareff in Pakistan makes it awkward to criticize coups in other places.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
“I was forced to join a gang
for self protection…”
Jim R., actually the whole post was pretty funny. Thanks for the injection of humor. I assuredly needed it!
September 20th, 2006 at 6:47 am
GOM,
Actually, that’s no Roman Catholic, he.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:29 am
Colin, you can pick up a thing or two on this site. Marc Cooper shows quite a bit of class letting the fur fly in the comments section and even joining in. I feel the disconect between far and not so far left tends to strengthen (at the very least) reactionary goverment. I think Noam Chomsky should be answering tough questions on Air America, and Michael Moore should be taking a grilling on Marc Cooper’s show. Instead, you get a lot of smug all around and nobody is kept honest. As far as civility goes; read Marc Cooper on Al Gore. Why should us little folk be denied the same licence?
September 20th, 2006 at 7:48 am
America’s against the coup in Thailand, it seems, but cautiously. One has to remember that in many ways this was – in theory – a progressive coup against a Berlusconi type authoritarian corrupt type. There was talk about civil society/military meetings in an article of New Left Review last year. Time will tell, but I personally think this may have been a progressive coup.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Randy Paul Says:
September 20th, 2006 at 6:47 am
GOM,
Actually, that’s no Roman Catholic, he.
—————————–
Now that was clever.
Even Calvinists call themselves Catholic.
(But No Romanist!)
September 20th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Thailand info:
http://www.newleftreview.net/?page=article&view=2615
September 20th, 2006 at 9:39 am
“Time will tell, but I personally think this may have been a progressive coup.”
Sorry, jcummings, but that’s what all military coup leaders say about their coups. There may be legitimate criticisms of Thaksi but he was elected over overwhelming margins, and if there is a problem then it has to be handled by democratic means. More than half of America wants to string George Bush up, but no one is calling for a military coup against him. We wait until 2008.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:53 am
RLC: “By the way, anyone else out there want to join me in de4mandeing that the UC Board of Regents fire John Yoo? Given the Ward Churchill precedent its only fair.”
I’m in. Except I think it would be better to kidnap John Yoo’s son and crush his testicles.
While we’re at it, let’s tear out the tongues of anyone who defends censorship. Also, proponents of the death penalty should be lined up against a wall and pumped full of lead. It would only be fair.
If you want peace, work for justice. Rough justice. If you’re lucky, you’ll not only get a little peace, but some war thrown in as well. A two-for-one special!
Oh … wait … a basic ethical precept from kindergarten is slowly floating up into consciousness … I almost recognise it … Ah, there, I see it now: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
I never figured out what they meant by that ….
September 20th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Wall – thanks for the response. The only thing I pick up from this site is some interesting and useful information and how NOT to communicate with someone who you’d really like to communicate with. Present company excepted of course. Best, C.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Is there such a thing as a progressive military coup?
Colin, stop being such a jerk. You’re politeness is clearly covering an insecurity about your political sympathies toward Ramsey Clark. Consider this a warning. This is your last chance to join my gang – we have great tattoos – before I really start to get nasty. I’ve already noticed that you didn’t condemn the murder of nuns…
September 20th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Whoops, Michael Balter and others got in before me.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:23 am
NeoDude,
I refuse to be outpedanted!
September 20th, 2006 at 10:34 am
There have been plenty of prog. military coups, esp. in parts of the world where government change by coup is the rule – Torrijos in Panama was a progressive of sorts, the generals in Peru of hte seventies, one could argue that Musharaff was more progressive than who he replaced, the Sandanistas took pwer in a military coup, as did Nasser.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Anyone who doubts what I’m saying about Thailand should truly read the NLR article I posted. I am not forming an opinion now after one day but I really believe that one should have all the information before they comment.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:37 am
I think democratic fetishism is a problem. As Lewis Lapham put it, if Americans were intelligent “we’d welcome a coup”
September 20th, 2006 at 10:58 am
“I think democratic fetishism is a problem.”
Thanks jcummings for letting us know you are a Stalinist at heart, although some of us already knew that. Are democratic centralism and the dictatorship of the proletariat fetishes too, or the principles that real revolutionaries like you live by?
September 20th, 2006 at 10:59 am
And before jcummings accuses me of redbaiting him, I fully admit it. Some revolutionaries have not fully confronted the fall of Communism yet.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Randy Paul,
You are correct, sir.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:04 am
And while I am here, let me say that I am opposed to military coups in principle, no matter what the excuse. Jcummings picks and chooses what coups he likes, just as George Bush does and just like the American imperialists he rightly blasts have always done.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:26 am
I accept that mine and Michael Balter’s principles differ. I am not opposed to any political action per se, provided the means are progressive.
I realize this sounds like Bushites (you’d rather Saddam still be in power? – to which I answer yes) but would Michael Balter rather Somoza still be in power? This has nothing to do with communism – and I resent the Stalinist insinuation – there is nothing Stalinist about any of the examples I cited. Call me anti-democratic, and I’ll plead situational, but don’t call me a Stalinist.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Have you read the NLR article? Is it really an anti-democratic coup if hte leader who is deposed used old-fashioned fraud the likes of which make Bush look like Allende?
September 20th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Jcummings, do you make no distinction between a military coup and a revolution with popular support? Because I do, so no, I don’t prefer Somoza.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:34 am
We are cross posting. No matter what Thaksin’s sins, which I am ready and willing to believe, there is NO EXCUSE for the military taking over. It is really hard to believe that you trust the military with dictatorial powers, and so readily too. Maybe where we disagree is that I am against authoritarian regimes whereas you think we have a fetish about democracy. As for the Stalinist label, you can resent it all you want, it still sticks.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:35 am
If you read the NLR article, you will see, there is strong evidence that in its own way that this was a popular coup – again, neither of us have enough information to call it – but I strongly suggest you look at the views of the Thai left.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
I will read the NLR article, but it will take a lot to make me abandon my principles against military coups, “popular” or not. If a coup was really popular, there would be no need to suspend parliament, suspend the constitution, declare martial law, etc etc, which this bunch did. Orwell would have a field day with this kind of doublespeak about popular military dictatorships.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Mavis – you got me. I promise to spew more vitriol at every chance. C-
September 20th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Don’t forget to rinse
September 20th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
No doubt jcummings will be shocked, shocked to hear that the coup leaders now say it will take a year to restore democracy. The first couple of graphs from this NYT story just out also show just how progressive the coup is likely to be. Of course, democracy is just a fetish so no problem really. Let me know when the year is up so I can tune in and hear the excuse they give for extending the deadline.
“BANGKOK, Sept. 20 — Thailand will probably not restore democracy for at least a year, Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin, the commander who seized power in a bloodless coup, announced today.
Speaking to reporters for the first time since tanks and troops under his command took to the streets of the capital late Tuesday night, General Sondhi offered a political timetable for the country’s democratic rehabilitation. An interim government would be chosen within two weeks, he said, and the process of writing a new constitution would follow.
“Drafting a new constitution should not take more than one year,†General Sondhi said; new elections could be then expected sometime around October 2007.
As Thais awoke this morning to news of the coup, General Sondhi’s junta sought to consolidate its control, banning public gatherings, threatening to shut down or block telecommunications and urging “farmers and laborers†— many of whom are strong supporters of the ousted government — to stay out of politics.”
September 20th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
You know, Mushareff was quoted on CNN a few years ago saying that there was more than one route to democracy. One day we may learn what his military dictatorship’s route will be. Some routes are more round about than others. In Germany, for example, they had democracy, then they had Nazism and killed six million Jews, and now they have democracy again. But they got there, so it’s okay, isn’t it?
September 20th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Back in the dark ages, when I was in Graduate school, it was a standard argument in Comparative Politics classes that in many third world countries the most progressive elements were to be found in the military and that coups could be progressive. And the Musharref Coup in Pakistan replace a “Democratically” elected government that was actually a faction of the ruling oligarchy and not representative of the population at large. At least that was a common analysis at the time by experts on South Asia. I don’t necessarily agree with any of this but it was hardly a Stalinist position. Unless you think the likes of Robert Scalipino were agents of the Comintern!
(For those who don’t remember he was a prime theoretician of the Vietnam War. Sort of the Wolfowitz of his day)
September 20th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
As I said, I don’t have all the information – I was merely suggesting a possibility, of which I was probably – but not 100 percent – wrong. It seems perhaps that the military, knowing of the extreme hatred of Thaksin – the left and social movements after all ground Bangcock to a hault not a year ago calling for Thaksin’s ouster – is taking advantage of a situation in which Thaksin could be easily taken out with consent and not a shot fired – and temporary martial law is acceptable in this type of situation, knowing Thaksin’s tentacles in the media.
Its complicated, and still to early to call but the military is not playing the right moves to have a situation that is free of Thaksin but not authoritarian.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
A coup is automatically undemocratic? This, I don’t get. Just about every successful popular revolution is made possible by the army joining the revolutionaries. Thus, every popular revolution has elements of military coup.
It’s a common LDC pattern — democracy, festering corruption, then a coup greeted with sighs of relief by most. Then a crawl back to the next attempt at democracy.
If the conditions for successful democracy are not met in a country, the military can end up being far more representative of the will of the people than vote-buying, ballot-box-stuffing elites. Gerard Chaliand (no rightwinger) pointed this out in his excellent book, Revolution in the Third World (translator: Diana Johnstone, also no right-winger.) At the time of publication, countries like Peru and Nigeria cycled between military and “democratic” government.
There was an interesting article some years back about Pakistan as a failing state. A Western-educated official was quoted as saying that he was intimately familiar with all of the prerequisites for stable liberal democracy, and that Pakistan fulfilled exactly none of them. In a tribalistic society, democracy often translates as “biggest tribe wins.” (Indeed, we are seeing something like that in Iraq today, are we not?)
Successful democracy isn’t just “one-man-one-vote-majority rule”. It’s a complex of evolved institutions and norms. (The American system didn’t spring full-bodied from the head of Zeus–it spent centuries becoming something more than half-baked in an oven called Britain.) At a certain stage of national evolution, the military might be the most egalitarian, least plutocratic, most meritocratic, most income-redistributive, and most demographically representative institution in the whole society. Top officers in such a military, when staging a coup, know that they won’t succeed if the ranks below them rebel–soldiers will “vote” against the coup leaders not only with their feet but with their guns. If the average soldier is a son of the average citizen, that soldier can actually end up being more representative of “the will of the people” than whatever is fished out of ballot boxes in these benighted countries.
I’m surprised this requires explanation.
This is not to say that toppling Thaksin was a good move, nor that the Thai coup leaders are very representative. It’s just to say that any “general principle” that coups are wrong can’t have any basis except tautology: military coups are wrong because [insert exasperated sigh with arms akimbo, maybe a petulant foot-stamp], well, they’re just *wrong, that’s all. Axiomatically!
Obviously, something is wrong if it’s come to a military coup. But it’s not automatically the military itself.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
I assume in no case would it be acceptable for an unpopular left socialist Prime Minister in Thailand, or anywhere else, to be removed by a coup Cummings. Nor would it ever be acceptable in any circumstance in your country Canada……. or not??
Thanks for the eye-opener Comrade.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
JCummings isn’t a Stalinist. Michael, you should know better, since you’ve got that bust of Stalin next to your umbrella stand (the Neville Chamberlain autograph model, if I’m not mistaken) in the foyer of your Paris digs. Unfortunately, there’s a segment of the left that is a bit too comfortable with the kind of “anti-Stalinism” that characterized Trotsky – authoritarianism isn’t so bad, as long as there’s room for them – and I think JC is from that sphere of (what I would consider) the ultra-left, neo-ML, or whatever. Maybe I’m being unfair, but I’m trying not to be. That said, I don’t think that every and any military coup – “situationally”, as JC aptly terms it – is the worst case. But it’s certainly arguable that when a military coup seems like it might be a godsend, “worst case” is probably not far from where you actually are. On top of that string of assertions, impressions and more-or-less unhinged opinions, I don’t know a damned thing about Thailand and it’s politics. I think I’ll take “Comrade JC” up on that NLR article. My current state of ignorance is undoubtedly worse than any neo-Trotskyite taint I’ll pick up over there. (I’m joking. They did good for years on Eastern Europe.)
September 20th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Btw, will someone please explain to what the hell a ‘progressive’ is. Is it just another word for the out-of-favor ‘liberal’ word?
I noticed in another thread someone lamented if liberals/progressives/left could just agree on a clear message, then the democratic candidates would stand a better chance against against the republicans. It occurred to me, a good start would be to agree on a word for for it for heaven sakes…..and stop trying to change it.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Since Pakistan has come up here a couple of times as a possible example of a good coup, just received the following from Human Rights Watch–by email, so apologies for posting the entire thing rather than a link. Michael Turner, a coup is undemocratic when it declares martial law, suspends the constitution, bans public gatherings and political activity–in the case of Thailand by farmers and laborers–and generally takes dictatorial powers upon itself. Nearly all military coups do that. So it is not a tautology at all in that case. Moreover, nearly all military coups do so in the name of restoring order, stability, etc etc.
Pakistan: Bush Should Press Musharraf to End Military Rule
U.S. Should Not Turn Blind Eye on Torture, Discrimination Against Women
(New York, September 20, 2006) – When U.S. President George W. Bush
meets with Pakistan’s General Pervez Musharraf on September 22, he
should press the Pakistani military ruler to restore civilian rule, hold free
and fair elections, and end legal discrimination against women, Human
Rights Watch said today.
Human Rights Watch urged President Bush to stop turning a blind eye to
Musharraf’s use of torture and “disappearances” in the fight against
terrorism and in Pakistan’s political conflicts. The two leaders are
scheduled to meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General
Assembly.
“If Bush is serious about fostering democracy in the Muslim world, how
can he support Musharraf’s refusal to end military rule in Pakistan?” said
Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “President Bush
should make it clear that the U.S won’t stand by as it did in the past when
Musharraf subverted the Pakistani constitution and staged flawed
elections.”
The Pakistani constitution prohibits the chief of the army from holding a
political office. Musharraf in 2003 promised to step down as either army
chief or president, but reneged the following year. Recent statements by
Musharraf and military-backed politicians have made clear that he intends
to stay on as army chief and president beyond the date set for elections in
2007. They have also suggested that he could be somehow re-elected
president by the outgoing parliament, which may try to extend its term
unilaterally by one year to do so in 2008.
Despite many commitments, President Musharraf has thus far failed to end
legal discrimination against women. The infamous Hudood Ordinances,
among other things, criminalize adultery and non-marital sex in Pakistan.
Under this set of laws, thousands of women have been imprisoned for so-
called “honor” crimes, including rape and sexual assault against them. The
laws have rendered most victims of sexual assault unable to seek redress
through the criminal justice system; it deems these women guilty of illegal
sex rather than victims of unlawful sexual abuse or violence.
Earlier this month, the Musharraf-backed ruling party, the Pakistan
Muslim League, reached an agreement with the moderate opposition
Pakistan Peoples Party to make procedural changes to the Hudood
Ordinances that would allow women charged with adultery to post bail.
These reforms would also permit rape victims to file charges under the
criminal law instead of religious law, which requires producing four male
witnesses to prove rape. But last week Musharraf backtracked on the
accord to seek an agreement with the Islamist Muttaheda Majlis-e-Amal
(MMA) alliance, which opposes any meaningful changes. As a result, the
Hudood Ordinances remain in place.
“If Musharraf wanted to end legal discrimination against women, he could
do so by seeking support from the majority of the National Assembly
members who favor legal reforms,” said Adams. “Instead, he sought an
alliance with the Islamist political parties that have made clear their
opposition to women’s rights.”
In response to domestic and international criticism, the government
announced on Tuesday that it would submit the bill in its original form to
the National Assembly in late September or early October.
“Promises about reform of the Hudood Ordinances have been made and
broken many times already,” said Adams. “This is the last chance for the
government to show its sincerity.”
Human Rights Watch noted that the Pakistani military is the country’s
leading violator of human rights. Under Musharraf, military impunity for
abuses has increased dramatically. These abuses include extrajudicial
killings, torture, arbitrary arrests and the persecution of political opponents.
Pakistan’s military and its intelligence agencies have tortured and forcibly
disappeared dozens of people in the volatile southwestern province of
Balochistan where they have been facing an armed rebellion by tribal
militants operating under the umbrella of the Balochistan Liberation
Army.
“Perpetrators of torture must be removed from Pakistan’s security forces
and prosecuted,” said Adams. “During their meeting in New York,
President Bush should tell Musharraf just that the Pakistani military’s
rampant abuses must end.”
Human Rights Watch has also investigated a pattern of “disappearances,”
arbitrary detention and torture in counterterrorism operations in Karachi,
Lahore and other major cities and towns in Pakistan. Some of these cases
have involved U.S. law enforcement or intelligence agents. Just as the
United States has done with “high value” suspects, Pakistan has continued
to “disappear” suspects in the campaign again terrorism and other conflicts.
Human Rights Watch urged both Pakistan and the United States to take
concrete measures to end the practice of using enforced disappearances,
arbitrary detention and torture as part of counterterrorism efforts.
“The counterterrorism partnership between the U.S. and Pakistan should
start to follow the rule of law rather than the law of the jungle,” said
Adams.
For more of Human Rights Watch’s work on Pakistan, please visit:
http://hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=pakist
September 20th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Blame it on William Jennings Bryan and Robert LaFollette. (One was a Dem and one a GOPer, of sorts. Hence, the confusion – made worse by Henry Wallace.) When right-wingers quit trying to lay claim to “liberal”, which many free-market ultra-ideologues do, we’ll quit playing loose with the tags.) Also, isn’t this kind of a pedantic, “who-gives-a-shit?” issue. A good rule of thumb these days on moderate leftism of the Dems versus crank “conservatism” of the GOPers is which gang wants to socialize health insurance and which gang thinks medical care should be increasingly commoditized. Also, which gang has screwed you 12 days to next Tuesday on the deficit, basic competence in government programs like FEMA, quagmire in Iraq and crony-capitalism (like magically disappearing billions in Baghdad) and which gang has got some small bit of religion on these issues, if only through the next election cycle.
A more interesting question than the labels “prog” vs. “lib”, is what the hell happened to old-fashioned, cautionary “conservatives” ? They appear nowhere to be found.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
(That was directed to Jim R’s query)
September 20th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
PS–Michael Turner, I am a big fan of yours even though we disagree sometimes, but as you say I am surprised that this needs explanation.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
While I am here, let me also comment on the situationist approach advocated by jcummings and I believe Michael Turner as well. The situationist approach means that you end up judging a situation primarily by the result you want to get rather than by the process used to get there. So democracy is not a basic principle, just one of a number of strategies for getting the result you want. If it turns out a military dictatorship does the job better, then you go that way. This is the logic in Thailand today, and it was the logic in Chile when the democratically elected Allende was overthrown by the Pinochet coup. Many in Chile thought this was just fine, and why? Because they didn’t like Allende and what he stood for. So even today the brutality and torture that took place in Chile are considered okay by many who supported Pinochet, because it got the result they wanted. The Nixon administration felt the same way. That is why I stick to first principles and not to situationism, because military coups could not succeed unless a portion of the population supported them on precisely these situationist grounds.
This is also why I call jcummings a Stalinist and stick to that label, because it is a apt term to describe anti-democratic tendencies within the left. It is fundamental to Marxism-Leninism that democracy is considered a fetish, as jcummings repeated here, rather than an end in itself. This is why all Communist parties are so profoundly undemocratic in their own internal structures.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
btw Stalinism and Trotskyism are not opposites, not in the real world today. They are just shades of the same color.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:48 am
Breaking news, the military has just banned all political meetings in Thailand. Is this what the left in Thailand wants? I read the NLR article and while it seems a sophisticated analysis of Thai politics, it changes nothing in the debate we are having IMHO. In fact, if the left was colluding with the military to bring about this result, as jcummings seems to imply in one of his posts, then that is their bad. What goes around is sure to come around. Stick to basic principles of democracy and don’t think that military dictatorships can be progressive and you are less likely to end up on the wrong side of history.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:03 am
Balter writes: “The situationist approach means that you end up judging a situation primarily by the result you want to get rather than by the process used to get there.”
If the ideal process for getting there has become unavailable, what are you supposed to do? If Dubya, in some coming crisis, declares martial law in the U.S., suspends habeus corpus, posse comitatus, congressional immunity, the whole ball of wax, then yes, dammit, I want a cabal of generals getting together and asking themselves, “Hey wait a minute–he’s our commander in chief, there’s a case for war powers in the executive, but … we took an oath not to obey the Commander in Chief, but to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and *domestic*. And this nutjob has put us in a situation where we have no constitutional means of unseating him in his subversion of the Constitution. What are we supposed to do? It’ll be embarrassing as hell to have to stage a coup, but what’s the next best choice?”
September 21st, 2006 at 3:27 am
Give me a break, Michael, you’ve got your head in the clouds. If Bush declared martial law he would do it with the military’s help or he wouldn’t do it at all. Don’t use absurd scenarios to discount the concerns I am expressing about the danger of endorsing military coups, which seem very relevant in the unfolding Thai situation.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:17 am
By the way, I meant to comment on this remark from MT earlier. This would I assume be the same Diana Johnstone who claims that there was no massacre at Srebrenica and has already shown her willingness to overlook the excesses of military actions by the Serbs.
“If the conditions for successful democracy are not met in a country, the military can end up being far more representative of the will of the people than vote-buying, ballot-box-stuffing elites. Gerard Chaliand (no rightwinger) pointed this out in his excellent book, Revolution in the Third World (translator: Diana Johnstone, also no right-winger.)”
September 21st, 2006 at 6:39 am
The difference between things being situational vix detractors of Allende on one hand, and detractors of Thaksin on the other has to do with class. I am not saying that things should be judged vix whether or not some of the people consent, rather which of the people consent, and thus I’ll judge a situation accordingly acording to my own optic.
Thus, for example there is a vast difference between Pierre Trudeau’s regrettable but understandable calling of martial law in Canada over the FLQ crisis, for example, and the prospect of Bush calling for martial law. Thus there is a vast difference between Luis Posada Cariles and Irish revolutionaries among others, both of whom used similar tactics, but to vastly different ends.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:40 am
Oh and thats not situationist. This is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Debord
September 21st, 2006 at 6:50 am
jcummings, you are strangely silent on the practical application of your ideas that we are seeing in Thailand as we write. Whether or not you like Thaksin, and whether or not people in Bangkok like him, the millions of people who have voted for and supported him are presently not allowed to express their views, nor is anyone else for that matter allowed to engage in any political activity whatsoever. Surprise, surprise. And I hammer on the political points behind this because it is the authoritarian streak in the far left that you are part of which allows well intentioned people to go down this garden path. You and Michael Turner both need to deal with the lessons we are learning right in front of our noses.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:02 am
I am not silent – as you see from an earlier post I conceded I may be – probably am – wrong about the coup. What ideas are you speaking of, except applying different political logic to different situations?
I think this issue should be put to rest….I am not personally in favor of authoritarian politics. My politics are probably describedas autonomism or anarcho-communism – the anti-authoritarian/left tradition within Marxism, Pannekoek, Rosa Luxembourg, etc. These are my ideal politcs. As a realist, my politicsare mostly Anti-Imperialist, so that is the optic I have – and my politics are also mostly in favor of the deposal of tyrants. It looks like this deposal may have been a “Won’t Get Fooled Again” new boss/old boss thing – but that isn’t always the case. I never once implied that I was sure about what I was speculating.
Oh, got to polish that bust of Uncle Joe.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:07 am
I agree, let’s put it to rest, but let’s be clear that putting different political logic to different situations is what we disagree about. My political logic is opposition to military dictatorships no matter what the excuses, and even if they are against alleged rightwing governments.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:03 am
Michael Balter, situational decisions are often preferable to absolutist poses. Certainly, when it comes to American humanitarian intervention and the violation of state soveriegnty, I believe you and I would advocate a situational approach while Mr. Cummings prefers an absolute course. Michael Turner is correct that there are situations where a military coup might leave people better off than they were before. Should there be a coup in N. Korea or had their been one in Iraq I wouldn’t have shed many tears. However, I don’t think one can reasonably predict when a military coup will benefit ordinary citizens – as you point out, the odds are bad – so I think it is very unwise to support a military coup. And the idea that a military coup could ever qualify as “progressive” strikes me as ridiculous on it’s face.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:08 am
“Michael Balter, situational decisions are often preferable to absolutist poses. Certainly, when it comes to American humanitarian intervention and the violation of state soveriegnty, I believe you and I would advocate a situational approach while Mr. Cummings prefers an absolute course.”
Mavis, I agree with your bottom line here but not on situationist grounds and not on absolutist grounds either. There is a difference between the types of interventions you are talking about, say in Darfur or Rwanda or Bosnia, which can be justified in my opinion on the principle of humanitarian action and saving human lives, and a military coup which leads inevitably to a military dictatorship either short or long term–usually long. I based my opposition to military coups on the principle of democracy and that there is never any justification to suspend it. That’s also why I am against Bush administration policies, by the way. So my positions are neither absolutist nor situationist in one case or the other but based on a particular principle in both cases. I do not agree that standing on principle makes one an absolutist, although some might think that this is a matter of semantics.
Jcummings has agreed that he may well have been wrong in his initial reaction to the Thai coup. It is honest of him to admit this, and my purpose is to point out what led him astray. In my view, it was his assumption that a military coup can be a good thing, whereas I assumed the opposite. Note how quickly this particular military coup has banned all political activity, something easy to predict if one sees that coups are by their nature antidemocratic.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Your examples of where military coups would have been improvements Mavis, N Korea and Iraq under Saddam, I agree with because neither were democracies to begin with.
I believe MB would agree a democracy makes the difference.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:03 pm
“I believe MB would agree a democracy makes the difference.”
Well, if a military coup overthrew a dictatorship and then handed power to the people and let them practice democracy, that might be an exception that still upholds the democratic principles I am advocating. I can’t think of any examples of this ever happening offhand, but that might just be because it is late where I am. Usually dictatorships or authoritarian governments are overthrown by revolutions instead, which may or may not go on to allow democracy.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:19 pm
I can’t think of any examples of this ever happening offhand
Michael Balter,
Costa Rica in 1949. Then they did something even smarter: they abolished their military.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:30 pm
“Thus, for example there is a vast difference between Pierre Trudeau’s regrettable but understandable calling of martial law in Canada over the FLQ crisis, for example, and the prospect of Bush calling for martial law”
Huh? You’re one of the few Canadian leftist I’ve ever encountered who actually defends the war measures act, which, it seems, to me involved flagrant trampling on human rights , the suspension of civil liberties, especially in Quebec and the state targetting of progressive left movements. It seems to me that these are the exact same “anti terrorism” measures, you rightly comdemn, when used the Israeli state. Canadian nationalism is strange
September 21st, 2006 at 2:39 pm
I plead guilty, to some degree to being a Canadian nationalist. I agree that the war measures act was abused, but I merely pointed out that in a situation of kidnapped politicians, I can forgive Trudeau his errors and prefer to remember him for nationalizing Petro Canada with Tommy Douglas – that is far different from the type of martial law that Bush would impose, and/or the likes of Burma, Thailand right now.
But was Trudeau right? I don’t think so. My uncle got his ass kickedat a demo during that time. But perhaps its our nationalism, but both of us forgave Trudeau. Perhaps we’re wrong…I don’t know. I don’t know what else a responsible leader would do (and I’m shocked at how much I agree with you that I seem to sound like how Israel apologists sound.)
September 21st, 2006 at 4:27 pm
An Historical note. William Jennings Bryan was a POPULIST. They tended to be farmers and workers who wanted a better deal. The “Cross of Gold” Speech was a plea for the rights of Labor and Bryan’s politics were the source of William Allen White’s famous essay “What’s the Matter With Kansas” that made him and the Emporia Gazette a national Institution.
The Progressives, like La Follette, TR and Hiram Johnson , were middle class reformers who wanted “Good Government” and an end to the domination of politicals by “Special Interests”.
Look at the difference in programs:
Populists: Public ownership of utilities, Cheap money, labor laws favoring workers and controls on the railroad’s ability to charge whatever the traffic could bear.
Progressives: Anti-Trust Laws, Pure Food and Drug Act, Federal Reserve Act, Direct Election of Senators and Political Primaries, Referendum, initiative and recall and non-partisan local elections.
See the difference. Dennis Kuchinich is a Populist. Ralph Nader is a Progressive.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Excellent history lesson, rlc. You’re right. Bryan was more closely aligned with the Populists – and your class distinctions and programatic emphases are essentially correct. But I think the lines began to blur as the Progressives gained ground. The midwestern liberal tradition – which has produced quite a few excellent legislators (IMHO most of the most honorable people who’ve graced Congress) – is a blend of the two great traditions (Proxmire, McGovern, Feingold, Wellstone, to name but a few).
September 21st, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Balter writes: “This would I assume be the same Diana Johnstone who claims that there was no massacre at Srebrenica and has already shown her willingness to overlook the excesses of military actions by the Serbs.”
Is there such a Diana Johnstone? Fill me in then. The one I’m thinking about never denied that there were massacres in Srebrenica, and has only taken exception to how scale and culpability were prejudged.
As for my “head being in the clouds”, just about every military coup has been against a regime that had already gained the cooperation of the military, only to see military support waver. I referred to a “cabal of generals”, not to all of them. The military is seldom a politically unified entity in any country, much less in ours and its political allegiances can shift.
Your position seems to be that military coups are simply wrong, period. To see them as being the best route in a given situation only makes me a moral relativist (or “situationist”) if there is something fundamentally immoral about taking power by military means. However, If I remember correctly, the United States is a product of taking power by military means from Britain, which was at the time a significantly democratic parliamentary regime. Approximately one-third of American colonials were opposed to it, and another one-third were on the fence. So independence faction didn’t even have unequivocal majority support. I guess this would make President George Washington something like a junta chief.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:42 pm
“the United States is a product of taking power by military means from Britain, which was at the time a significantly democratic parliamentary regime.”
MT, your powers of analogy drawing are flagging seriously. The United States is a product of a revolution against a colonial power that did not extend democracy to its colonies and oppressed them in other ways. Taxation without representation, all that sort of thing we read about in the textbooks, or is that history wrong? As I said earlier, a military coup is not the same as a popular revolution. Once again, give us all a break.
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:21 am
“Well, if a military coup overthrew a dictatorship and then handed power to the people and let them practice democracy, that might be an exception that still upholds the democratic principles I am advocating.”
Your ‘democratic principle’ only makes sense MB if a democracy is what is at risk to begin with.
Otherwise, your ‘universal democratic priciple’ gets into clear trouble when it forbids support for military coups against long term tyrants, like im ung ‘ill’ and Saddam and Sons with no relief for the people in site, unless there is some indication the coup would lead to a democracy.
You seem willing to throw the baby(the people) out with the bathwater(military coups) in order to preserve some sort of absolute democratic principle, even when the people are suffering, with no chance in hell of a revolution do to the entrenched brutality of the dictator, with no chance of democracy by revolution, and even if the coup is against a ruthless dictator and not a democracy elected elected leader.
Sorry, it just doesn’t work. Too ridgid.
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:27 am
That would be “kim jung ‘ill’”, and “due to the entrenched”, and etc.
Need more time I don’t have for proof reads I guess.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:09 am
“As I said earlier, a military coup is not the same as a popular revolution. Once again, give us all a break.”
I never said it was the same. Try following my logic. From what I can tell of *your* logic, it’s that when the military takes power, it’s always wrong. OK, but would it have been wrong if it had been von Stauffenberg *succeeding* in his attempt to assassinate the duly-elected Adolf Hitler?
OK, whatever. I give up. (He applies the lobotomy instruments to his own forehead.)
Ah. Feel much better now.
Democracy: good. Always. Everywhere.
Military: bad. Always. Everywhere.
Life simple now. Michael happy. Michael know what to feel. Michael listen for word. Word make Michael feel good? Then thing good. Word make Michael feel bad? Then thing bad. Simple Don’t think. Why? Think hard, just get tired.
April 29th, 2007 at 3:29 am
girl tied up…
Relevant girl tied up…
June 4th, 2009 at 9:20 am
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.
November 5th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Okay extremely I have had The car as with regards to three weeks Today. this wasn’t until a week later when I was operating The vehicle at evening, I noticed the The headlights on The auto and also including The interior lights were dimming slightly and also Getting brighter again (every two seconds The lights may dim, but After that go rear how to normal) by the very same time, I also heard a faint whining noise which seemed To Follow The very same pattern a warm or hot environment the lights (off and in, not continuous). the following morning I drove the vehicle, and also even via The headlights off, the whining continued. I also checked if it i has subsequent out of the AC, rather which i has never this. it didn’t routinely come about every time turned The car by. this seemed liking it would happen with regards to ten minutes after I started driving it. as well, the headlights only flickered when the engine i has at. a lot I decided To get this how to The dealership. They said this i has The alternator, ever so they replaced this as $700. Four days passed after they anchored it and also The auto was OK. it wasn’t until yesterday I noticed The very same thing most during Once more. may someone say to me What is improper? (The automobile is into excellent disaability otherwise with only 50,000 miles going on this).
December 5th, 2010 at 10:15 am
This is most likely the most effective article that ever cross my reference. I don’t see why anyone ought to disagree. It may be too simple #for them# to comprehend…anyway nice work i’m coming again right here for Extra Nice Stuff!!
February 4th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
I really like this amazing publish, many thanks to your insight
February 5th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Great post on a great looking site! Thanks for sharing!
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:53 pm
A new website called http://www.24-7-traffic.com has launched recently it is a traffic exchange a website that you can use to get free website traffic to any website or blog.