Posted by Tina
The following story, reported by Conservative Treehouse represents the imbalance and politics that has driven the left media and leftist Alinsky politics for decades. Only stories that will advance the left agenda deserve media attention and only stories that can be exploited by activists for the same reason are worthy of attention. Caution, this is a depraved and sickening crime:
19-Year-Old Jessica Lane Chambers was brutally murdered in Mississippi two nights ago.
Unfortunately the details of her murder are so horrific to comprehend they make the current racial anxiety in the headlines seem small, yet also potentially more explosive.…When the fire department got there, she was walking down the road on fire. […] They squirted lighter fluid down her throat and in her nose…
Yes, Jessica was white; and no, by all accounts her killer(s) were not.
She wasn’t just attacked, beaten, and burned alive – she was brutalized beyond all horrific imaginings. When you identify what took place, and contrast her horrific murder against the current national dialogue, you can also understand why the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation (MBI), and all Mississippi politicians, will most likely lead the media to bury this story as quick as possible.
Jessica apparently provided clues to the identity of her killers before she died. Her father, Ben Chambers, worked in the Panola County Sheriff’s Office in Mississippi.
The originating report leaves out the race of the attackers, no doubt in response to new rules barring profiling that the President has recently directed.
Why do you never check beyond your first (and usually unreliable) source?
Cause I cannot find another that backs up any of your racial inferences. In fact, there are indications that whoever killed her was in the car with her and, one could infer, knew her.
Libby, maybe this will help, taken from todays news stories…”Jessica was trying to exit a relationship with a black boyfriend, who, again according to social media accounts, had been abusive to her throughout their relationship. From Jessica’s perspective it was over, however apparently her ex did not accept her leaving.
The identity of the ex-boyfriend is well known to the surrounding multi-cultural community, which is PC code-speak for “the non-white friends and social network” who knew her.
Source, please.
Libby, here’s a little more… “Whether her attacker acted alone, or, as most suspect, had a crew of like-minded thugs enlisted to assist in his brutal attack, is unknown. What is well known is that Jessica had broken away from the abusive boyfriend prior to her murder.”
So, we don’t know who the suspect is yet, but we do know she had just broken up with her black boyfriend and he wasn’t happy about it. That’s all the story says, make from that what you will.
No, I’m not going to cite the source of this information, you really must learn to use the search engine for yourself. Try Google, insert the quote and see what pops up.
Not good enough, Tina. If you’re still quoting Treehouse, as near as I can tell, they’re making it up.
Not a single local news source has said anything more than that her attacker was probably in the car with her.
Libby, let me be clear, are you accusing Treehouse of making up the story that the victim had a black boyfriend and that she had just broken up with him before the attack? On what do you base this? And it better not be because nobody else in the media said it. That’s not good enough. Treehouse said they spoke with her friends and this is the story they were told. Why would you instantly reject this? I think I know why, because its from a conservative website.
Libby if you are going to accuse Treehouse of making up the story, a story that links to the origin local source, you had better be prepared to back up your reason to doubt it.
Also reports from now on will be sketchy since profiling is specifically prohibited and the administration has made life a hell for anyone involved in law enforcement (Or reporting):
The link is in my story.
Have you any concerns of any kind for victims in this crime? Does this crime rise to the level of outrage or not?
Are you making excuses…attempting to avoid the reality?
Does it matter to you that the authoritative powers are operating very selectively, according to a racial agenda, when applying laws, choosing to protest, addressing serious problems?
It bothers me a lot! It amounts to taking a giant step backwards into he77.
Articles like this make me wonder if the people who write them understand what the purpose of protest even is.
People don’t protest every time something bad happens in the world. People usually reserve protests for problems they believe are 1) systemic, 2) feasibly fixable through the political process, and 3) controversial.
Psychopaths burning women to death doesn’t cover any of those bases. No sane person believes that what this monster did was OK. There is no public disagreement, ergo, no protest. What would be the point? Who would they be protesting against? Murderers? What good would that do? The police? Why? Is there any evidence that this crime was covered up or not investigated properly?
Hell, the Conservative Treehouse article basically answers its own question:
“Unlike the death of Mike Brown, and unlike the death of Eric Garner, Jessica’s death was premeditated murder with extreme malice aforethought and horrifically special circumstances – which, if proven, will most assuredly result in a death penalty charge against at least one of her murderers, perhaps more.”
So…the writer admits that the suspects, if found guilty, will almost certainly be punished, and still doesn’t grok why the people protesting the lack of indictments in the Eric Garner and Mike Brown cases aren’t also protesting this? Seriously?
You can’t feign this type of ignorance.
As for media coverage, again, it all comes down to controversy. Don’t get me wrong, the media loves it some gruesome murders, but what it loves even more is stories that ignite passionate debate. There is no debate in this case! No one is going to get on camera and say that the murderers were right to do what they did, or that the victim had it coming. No one is going to say that the killers shouldn’t have a trial.
So really, this article is comparing apples to oranges. A proper comparison to the Mike Brown case would be an example of a black officer shooting an unarmed white suspect and then not being indicted despite conflicting witness testimonies. A proper comparison to the Garner case would be a black officer causing death by neck and chest compression to a white suspect for a non-arrestable offense. Show me examples of that happening (I’m sure similar examples can’t be hard to produce; police brutality is not ONLY committed by whites against minorities) and I’ll be the first to be outraged.
But you’re asking for the media and activists to devote as much time and energy protesting against individual murderers as they do against trained government employees with the right to use force against citizens. That doesn’t make any sense.
Chris: “Who would they be protesting against?”
How about the violence problem in the black community? In the last few years we have seen repeated incidents of swarms of blacks looting stores, attacks on whites and the knock out game, and the black on black crime in cities like Chicago is totally out of control. An incident in Ferguson, hyped to the stars inspires several nights of looting and riots in Oakland, Berkley and LA! And its excused, tolerated, and explained away. Can you see how this attitude sends the wrong message to blacks that black violence will always be justified?
“and still doesn’t grok why the people protesting the lack of indictments in the Eric Garner and Mike Brown cases aren’t also protesting this? ”
The “lack of indictment” was a result of finding no compelling reason to prosecute (Also no reason to protest if you’re an honest reasonable person and many blacks were). An assumption of guilt, a bias of guilt, is not a legal basis for prosecution! Its an emotional response…a response fanned to flame unnecessarily and irresponsibly.
“No one is going to get on camera and say that the murderers were right to do what they did, or that the victim had it coming. No one is going to say that the killers shouldn’t have a trial.”
Someone could decide to say that this kind of behavior is out of control! Someone could present cases over a years time to draw attention to a crisis in the black community and psyche. Someone could try to draw conclusions about what dysfunction of society is motivating violence in black youths. There are any number of approaches that could be taken. Do we avoid focusing on black violence because we fear being called racist? Is it because white broadcasters and producers just don;t want to go “there”? If the child were a black girl and the boyfriend white what would happen and why? (Equal treatment under the law is the freedom cry a protester could use!) If the prosecution of a white police officer, and the destruction of a town, when there is no evidence of guilt is the standard what should be the equivalent basis for justice in this case? Why can you not see that we bring this up to highlight the messed up sense of justice for blacks being built by the Holders, Obamas, and Sharptons of the world?
Your well reasoned final paragraph belies the fact that the outrage in Ferguson was manufactured BEFORE the facts of the case. The story line, the narrative, in Ferguson was established BEFORE the witnesses had all been properly questioned and their testimony compared to the evidence. The narrative about what happened in Ferguson, which you apparently still buy into, was established for political purposes before the facts were known.
You on the left are asking that we prosecute trained government employees when a black person is involved whether he’s done something wrong or not. Guilt by reason of race! That doesn’t make any more sense than did the inequality we have tried so hard to wipe out. We are asking you to notice the error in your thinking. Had there been sufficient evidence to prosecute there would have been a trial and I would have been happy to see it take place.
Open your eyes Chris. There’s some messed up stuff going on that will only do harm to race relations in America, not to mention undermining the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to enforce our laws and help to keep our streets safe.
“Libby, let me be clear, are you accusing Treehouse of making up the story ….”
Well, I just checked again, and not a single other source backs any of this up, so what I’m doing is suggesting that you are being played … yet again.
It really should not be so easy to do.
I mean, so far, the cops are playing it very close. The parents are talking, but not about any vengeful boyfriends.
Libby, I guess time will tell. As to the boyfriend, there’s not been an accusation, it’s just a statement of fact and that fact needs to be proven, if it becomes relevant and right now nobody knows if it is relevant.
“How about the violence problem in the black community?”
There’s no evidence that the black community bears any responsibility for this particular murder, and it is wrong to hold an entire race of people accountable for every murder committed by a member of that race.
It also does not make sense to equate protests against an organized, politically powerful, rules-based organization such as the police with protests against an entire minority culture. Obviously, the former is much more likely to be effective and enact change than the latter.
But if you want to hold protests and rallies against violence in the black community, nothing is stopping you from doing that; you seem to be upset that other people aren’t doing that kind of work for you.
But if you do hold such protests, I have a question: When the Klan and other white supremacists inevitably show up, will it be fair for people to hold you and the other protesters responsible for every word and action of theirs, the way you have held the Ferguson protesters and all their supporters collectively responsible for the rioters and looters?
To Chris:
“How about the violence problem in the black community?”
C: There’s no evidence that the black community bears any responsibility for this particular murder, and it is wrong to hold an entire race of people accountable for every murder committed by a member of that race.
J: Once again you state an undeniable truth while totally obfuscating the original point. (Getting my crayons out now to splain it to you) You see Chris, it’s all about a matter of proportion. On one hand you have this false moral outrage over a couple of justifiable killings of Blacks under the color of authority and on the other hand you have a thousand fold more [unjustified] homicides committed against Blacks, but those murders are denied their due moral outrage and due consideration and due protestations, by a host of Black leaders, the liberal media and liberals in general for one glaring reason. . .because the offenders are also Black! The latter does not fit the man bites dog story they all want and besides cops are a far easier target because people in large part already have a biased against them – see, What It’s Like to be a Cop.
A rational person would conclude that’s messed up. Campeche? No, of course you don’t, but maybe some day you will, one can only hope.
C: It also does not make sense to equate protests against an organized, politically powerful, rules-based organization such as the police with protests against an entire minority culture. Obviously, the former is much more likely to be effective and enact change than the latter.
J: A rose is a rose, a protest is a protest, but an unjust, disproportioned protest, is still stupid.
C: But if you want to hold protests and rallies against violence in the black community, nothing is stopping you from doing that; you seem to be upset that other people aren’t doing that kind of work for you.
J: Yeah, and if you want to walk on the sun, nothing stopping you. One stupid analogy begets another.
C: But if you do hold such protests, I have a question: When the Klan and other white supremacists inevitably show up, will it be fair for people to hold you and the other protesters responsible for every word and action of theirs, the way you have held the Ferguson protesters and all their supporters collectively responsible for the rioters and looters?
J: Rule #1005, Alinsky’s Rule book for Radicals. Create a straw man argument, then quickly crush it as if the opposition actually embraced that absurdity, thus demonstrating your intellectual superiority when no such superiority exists.
Local TV is the source of the story. If they don’t cover it going forward we’ll probably never know, like we never would have heard about the Ferguson case except that Holder, the President, the black caucus and radical activist jumped in to hype the story, control the narrative and make it a national story.
Nobody has been “played” from this story.
The same cannot be said for Ferguson. As usual Libby has it a$$ backwards!
Tina:
“Your well reasoned final paragraph belies the fact that the outrage in Ferguson was manufactured BEFORE the facts of the case. The story line, the narrative, in Ferguson was established BEFORE the witnesses had all been properly questioned and their testimony compared to the evidence. The narrative about what happened in Ferguson, which you apparently still buy into, was established for political purposes before the facts were known.”
I’m pretty sure I’ve conceded all of that already? That still doesn’t justify the analogy made here. You can still believe that the protesters acted stupidly and the media overhyped this event, while also understanding the difference between protesting the police department (even for bad reasons) and protesting a minority subculture. The former has layers of organization and recognized authority and the latter does not. Protesting the black community makes about as much sense as protesting the Internet; there are no leaders or central control structure to satisfy your demands, so what would be the point?
“You on the left are asking that we prosecute trained government employees when a black person is involved whether he’s done something wrong or not. Guilt by reason of race!”
Complete misrepresentation. Again, most protesters believed that the officer had done something wrong. Now, that belief may have been based on bad information–the “hands up, don’t shoot” story seems at best a faulty memory, at worst a deliberate fabrication–but most protesters genuinely believed it, and if it had been true, then my opinion would be completely different.
I’m not exonerating the protesters. I firmly believe that people have a duty to inform themselves before spouting political narratives. But saying that they only wanted this officer found guilty because he was white is a strawman argument. They wanted him found guilty because they were convinced he did something truly awful. And honestly, given the conduct of the Ferguson PD both in the years prior and the immediate aftermath of the Brown shooting (several witnesses claimed that an officer let their dog urinate on a memorial to Brown, and that police cars later ran over it; numerous instances of brutality against protesters and journalists were documented), I can see why the story was at least plausible to many people.
“Had there been sufficient evidence to prosecute there would have been a trial and I would have been happy to see it take place.”
But there was significant any evidence to prosecute; my problem is that the grand jury didn’t stop there, as is usual practice. Instead they also viewed exculpatory evidence, which is almost never done (except, of course, for police officers), and that exculpatory evidence was not questioned as aggressively as the evidence in favor of prosecution. That’s simply not equal justice, and it’s about more than race; it’s about special privileges to the enforcers of government power over ordinary citizens.
J: ” On one hand you have this false moral outrage over a couple of justifiable killings of Blacks under the color of authority”
I hope you’re not implying that the killings of Eric Garner or 12 year old Tamir Rice were justified. The Brown shooting may have been justified; I’m not sure, because the grand jury process was handled in such a Bizarro World fashion, but I lean towards it being justified.
“The latter does not fit the man bites dog story they all want and besides cops are a far easier target because people in large part already have a biased against them”
And as we all know, there are no social biases against black people!
J: “A rose is a rose, a protest is a protest, but an unjust, disproportioned protest, is still stupid.”
Sure. But so are bad analogies.
C: But if you want to hold protests and rallies against violence in the black community, nothing is stopping you from doing that; you seem to be upset that other people aren’t doing that kind of work for you.
J: “Yeah, and if you want to walk on the sun, nothing stopping you. One stupid analogy begets another.”
Huh? Conservative Treehouse is the one that called for protests against the black community, not me. Are you saying you agree that their original analogy was stupid?
C: But if you do hold such protests, I have a question: When the Klan and other white supremacists inevitably show up, will it be fair for people to hold you and the other protesters responsible for every word and action of theirs, the way you have held the Ferguson protesters and all their supporters collectively responsible for the rioters and looters?
J: “Rule #1005, Alinsky’s Rule book for Radicals. Create a straw man argument, then quickly crush it as if the opposition actually embraced that absurdity, thus demonstrating your intellectual superiority when no such superiority exists.
Except that I am not creating a strawman argument. I am responding to Tina’s actual argument. She has made it very clear that she believes that anyone even remotely sympathetic to the protesters’ concerns bears responsibility for the riots. She has said that even those who have explicitly condemned the riots are responsible if they have expressed sympathy for the peaceful protesters. It is not a strawman argument to address someone’s actual points and ask if they would like to be held to the same standard they are holding others to.
Re #14 Jack :
Dang Jack, you just nailed this turd to the door.
Ref: “Only stories that will advance the left agenda deserve media attention and only stories that can be exploited by activists for the same reason are worthy of attention. Caution”
Yes Tina, the original point of your post is being played out,not only by the National leftist media, who for the first time some 5 days after this happened NBC ran a story that I saw. (5 days based on timelines of post) Also it is being debated by those die hard leftists here who have as Jack writes, applieda Alinsky’s teaching #1005.
It is the lack of reporting as I read it that was the core of Tina’s article
That process of delay and avoid is currently applied daily as Obama’s press core mantra;
‘you can ask any question you want, but take what I say and go away and then piss off’
Like the proverbial bad apple, even one is enough to taint the group. But thankfully we have Tina and Jack and others to cull those who would try and rot the information posted here.
Jack at #14 Applause, applause!
Chris please don’t attempt to “make very clear” the things that I say. You have proven yourself to be lousy at getting what I say. Instead you re-frame what I say so it matches some distorted or imagined reality that fits your prejudices and biases. You don’t communicate Chris. You monitor, instruct and upbraid.
Tina, are you accusing me of misrepresenting your argument? If so, you should tell me where exactly I did that, so I don’t make the mistake again.
Here is what I said:
“She has made it very clear that she believes that anyone even remotely sympathetic to the protesters’ concerns bears responsibility for the riots. She has said that even those who have explicitly condemned the riots are responsible if they have expressed sympathy for the peaceful protesters.”
Where in either of those two sentences have I described your argument inaccurately? I can point to exact quotes from you in which you blame President Obama for the riots even though he explicitly condemned them, as well as others in which you blame all Ferguson protesters and even all liberals for the rioting.
Would you like to withdraw your accusation?
You are “remotely” concerned. I do not hold you responsible.
“She has said that even those who have explicitly condemned the riots are responsible if they have expressed sympathy for the peaceful protesters.”
I don’t have a clue where you got this idea. Having sympathy for the protesters is irrelevant. Sympathy is a useless emotion with respect to what has happened legally and politically and that is what I have addressed.
It’s incredible to me that you have expressed great “empathy” for protesters but expressed little outrage or empathy in support of a man used as a pawn in a political game. He was deemed guilty before being charged, even before the facts were known! A man whose authority was challenged, who was assaulted and, after the event, threatened with death, forced into hiding, and lost his job, maybe his profession, over “trumped up” outrage! I think its ridiculous that you do not see, or will not acknowledge, that this protest is a phony political construct.
” I can point to exact quotes from you in which you blame President Obama for the riots even though he explicitly condemned them…”
Chris you believe Obama is an honest man; I do not. I believe that he is a man who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Of course he condemns the rioting, wink wink, but he also encourages it by helping to make what was a local issue a national event…he’s a trained organizer, of course he knew what would happen.
Would you like to withdraw your accusation?
The President, Holder, Black Caucus, et al, are not “anyone”. They are specific, persons in authority that have played a big part in creating the atmosphere of phony trumped up charges that blacks are being targeted. They are feeding and keeping divisions alive.
Would you like to join the grown ups in the room or are you determined to remain a child?
Me: “She has said that even those who have explicitly condemned the riots are responsible if they have expressed sympathy for the peaceful protesters.”
Tina: “I don’t have a clue where you got this idea.”
Tina, two paragraphs later: “Of course he condemns the rioting, wink wink…he’s a trained organizer, of course he knew what would happen.”
Now do you see where I got this idea?
“Having sympathy for the protesters is irrelevant. Sympathy is a useless emotion with respect to what has happened legally and politically and that is what I have addressed.”
I thought it was pretty clear I was using the word “sympathy” in the political sense, as in “agreement with” or “approval of.” I wasn’t talking about feelings or emotions.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sympathy?s=t
“He was deemed guilty before being charged, even before the facts were known!”
This is a deeply ironic statement coming from you.
It’s true that Officer Wilson was deemed guilty by the court of public opinion, and that was wrong. If he acted in self defense (and again, since there was no trial and the GJ was far too deferential to Wilson, I don’t know for sure if he did), then I do feel sympathy (in the emotional sense) for him.
But you have gone on record supporting the practice of the government actively arresting, detaining, and torturing terror suspects without trial or any kind of due process. You’ve defended this practice even after it was revealed that at least 26 people who were tortured under this system were found innocent after the fact. Two of them were our own informants whom we tortured by mistake. Instead of condemning this, you attacked the messengers.
So clearly, you don’t really have a problem with people being treated as guilty before trial or before getting all the facts. Except, of course, when you ideologically identify with the accused.
An adult would be able to understand a person’s actions speak louder than what they say. Obama having Al Sharpton as an advisor should speak volumes of Obama’s preference.
Re #22: My empathy lies with the innocent people whose bodies have been violated property destroyed by the riots. I have no empathy for rioting scum. I leave that to people like Chris and Libby. And yes, Obama inflamed the rioting. This president is no president. He is a disaster.
Chris is determined to remain the mean little kid.
Peggy: “An adult would be able to understand a person’s actions speak louder than what they say. Obama having Al Sharpton as an advisor should speak volumes of Obama’s preference.”
Neither Obama or Sharpton are rioting in the streets, so I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying Al Sharpton is also a secret supporter of rioters, even though he also publicly condemns them, and by hiring him this reveals Obama to be a double-super-secret-riot-supporter? As guilt by association goes, this is particularly byzantine.
Chris: “…she has said that even those who have explicitly condemned the riots are responsible if they have expressed sympathy…”
Why would I say they are responsible for riots because of sympathy? That would be stupid.
Public condemnation of violence is a requirement in the game you idiot! Of course it’s awful that peoples businesses get burned to the ground but its okay because we aren’t FOR that.
Sorry Chris the problem is they KNOW to expect it and accept that as collateral damage. the cause is all that matters.
The current cause isn’t civil rights or blacks…they are also pawns. No, the cause is the fundamental transformation of America and the path to reaching that goal is the destruction of American institutions. America’s men in blue are on the list of things needing to be destroyed. The division, confusion, and strife generated in the process is exactly what this type of two-faced organizer wants…see here and here:
These people are not who you think they are. Or, you are one of them and just as underhanded, duplicitous, and vile!
On what, other than leftist website talking points, do you base this opinion?
“you have gone on record supporting the practice of the government actively arresting, detaining, and torturing terror suspects without trial or any kind of due process.”
I accept the designation “enemy combatant” and think it appropriate to detain them in a time of war.”
I think this enemy is different from your average criminal US citizen.
I think the rules that govern war are different which you do accept or you’d be raising holy hell over drone strikes used to kill US citizens on foreign soil without benefit of trial.
A thing is not wrong simply because you believe it is. It isn’t wrong because left wing activist attorneys say it is, either. This is a matter of disagreement that has yet to be resolved.
Our enemy is different from enemies of the past and the rules we had before did not apply. New rules were designed specifically and with great care in a short amount of time following 911 to address the problems. I believe what was done was appropriate, smart, and humane given the circumstances.
You might have noticed this stateless enemy has yet to be defeated. You might have noticed the war continues. During WWII POW’s came home only if they survived and then, only when the war was OVER! Trials were not required for the majority of prisoners on either side.
Your argument does nothing to address the issue at hand nor advance a sensible solution to the problem of enemy combatants. The smart ass who took the WH in 08 didn’t close Gitmo did he! Interrogations continue he just gave the job to others so he couldn’t become a target like Bush. In fact he avoided being GWB II only by switching to killing (Roles reversed you’d be calling what he’s done murder) American targets in the ME with drones.
Your commie buddies didn’t hold Clinton to the same standard, Chris. You have gotten in bed with those who condoned rendition by their silence when their guy was in charge. Your agreement with them now makes you just as dishonest and deceitful as they are.
“You’ve defended this practice even after it was revealed that at least 26 people who were tortured under this system were found innocent after the fact.”
Horse hockey! Your use of the word torture with my name attached to it is pure Alinsky. Congratulations, you little weasel, you’ve learned your lessons well a la Alinsky
You are fast becoming a truly despicable human being.
I believe that water boarding by our CIA was done at a time of extreme emergency and I believe it was done in a controlled environment with a doctor present.
I believe information we got prevented at least one immediate attack (in Los Angeles) and also eventually led us to Bin Laden.
I believe we are dealing with ruthless, determined killers. I have seen their work in video of beheadings and in New York, DC, and Pennsylvania.
I believe the enemy we are dealing with requires all kinds of new approaches and our leaders and those who fight this enemy deserve our support and thanks. I believe much of what happens in circumstances like this are horrific and require adequate, if unsavory responses. I believe it requires a strong stomach and backbone and anything short of that only prolongs the war and results in more lives lost.
I believe the attacks on our CIA and the Bush team are purely POLITICAL and you are a total fool.
“I accept the designation “enemy combatant” and think it appropriate to detain them in a time of war.””
Even though over two dozen of these so-called “enemy combatants” turned out to be innocent?
You still haven’t addressed the central problem with your argument: you claim to not trust the government to perform even the most simple matters, but you do trust the government to determine who is worthy of keeping in secret prisons and subjecting to incredibly harsh treatment (for the sake of argument, I’m not even going to use the word torture his time).
That makes no sense. Such trust was unwarranted enough even before the report came out–common sense and reason tells you that without due process, the chances of detaining innocent people is quite high. That’s why we fucking have due process. It isn’t to protect the guilty. It’s to protect the innocent.
It was one thing to say “Oh, I’m sure the government will be able to tell who is a terrorist and who isn’t” before the level of their incompetence came out. I mean, you were warned, but not by anyone you had any respect for, so I’m willing to try and understand your position prior to this. But now we have documented PROOF of how bad the government was at performing this task, and STILL you say that we should allow them to make his unilateral call? To detain people in secret and subject them to harsh interrogation? On what possible basis could you continue to think this is a good idea, given the innocent lives that were ruined the last time you and your compatriots gave the government such unlimited power?
“I believe information we got prevented at least one immediate attack (in Los Angeles) and also eventually led us to Bin Laden.”
Your beliefs are based on lies.
No actionable intelligence about bin Laden was uncovered through torture; the relevant information was gleaned through standard means of interrogation.
http://www.businessinsider.com/cia-lied-about-osama-bin-ladens-capture-2014-12
I for one find it offensive that you are dragging the names of all the good men and women serving the United States who are responsible for uncovering bin Laden’s whereabouts through good old fashioned intelligence work by comparing them to the government-created monsters who resorted to methods that were not only morally despicable, but completely unreliable and useless. But why should I be surprised: you also smear all the brave and noble members of the police force when you insist that we should not hold them to high expectations, and when you uphold those that engage in excessive force and brutality as the gold standard of heroism. This is an insult to those who actually represent the best of their profession.
Of course, all of this is of apiece with your smearing of America, a nation that is supposed to be better than what you would make it; a nation that is supposed to hold itself to a higher standard; a nation that does not buy into the idea that “the enemy is worse” is ever a justification for war crimes; a nation in which citizens should be able to hold their heads high and say, “Not here. Never us. We will not stoop to the level of those who wish to destroy us. We will not give them the satisfaction.”
You are a patriot in the same way that Jeffrey Dahmer was a connoisseur.
Chris, et al, we’re getting way off track from the original post. It’s helpful to stay on subject and narrow your focus, otherwise we wind up in a boring, endless debate that serves no purpose and is a time waster.