Monday, October 4, 2010

Big Difference – Tyranny versus Rule of Law

[UPDATE II :: Thursday, October 7, 2010 - Excellent article on The American Concervative by Daniel Larison: Assassination (II).]
"... If someone tries to sue, the government will shut down the lawsuit by invoking secrecy and national security. This is the very definition of unaccountable, lawless government. Defending the particular instance of targeting al-Awlaki for assassination doesn’t even address the main question, which is the administration’s effective claim to be beyond the law." (Read the article.)
[UPDATE :: Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - Latest News update also related to The Bigot Is Back involving the Times-Standard's "As It Stands" article of September 19, 2010.]

Supreme Court hears case of Marine funeral protests

Baltimore Sun - ‎1 hour ago‎
An emotionally charged case - involving protests at the funeral of a Marine from Westminster - is getting a hearing before the Supreme Court today.

Also: "High court struggles with funeral protest case."

The important words here are "An emotionally charged case." The question remains, will this supposedly conservative-leaning Court uphold the Rule of Law and reaffirm the U.S. Constitutions legitimacy or will they opt for the emotion-driven, hysterical Rule of Man. My bet is they'll cave-in to the hysteria and uphold mob-rule - the essence of "psychological terrorism".

Authoritarian Extremists, Tyranny and the Thought Police -
How They Rule the World

About a year and half ago I picked up the Sunday Times-Standard newspaper and I happened to notice “Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community?” written by Dave Stancliff. Since I'm interested in the Internet and had recently observed how some local bloggers and commenters had discriminated against another local blogger after bigotedly calling him a Troll, I read what he said. It all seemed innocent enough when I sat down to post some observations on this subject “Internet Trolls” on the Joe Blow Report. When I began to read what he said in more depth, what intrigued me was how slick he was, the subtlety used to incorporate a rather ominous regressive message. It was this all-pervading message and the resultant serious negative consequences affecting American society today which prompted me to include the following comment below.

Consider the seriousness of what I said over a year ago and how that very issue is being debated right here in Humboldt County and all over this country today. I had inadvertently exposed what was really going on; the real agenda. What I said was going on, falsely accusing someone, then acting on that accusation to justify whatever action they take, is exactly what happened. Consistent with the premise of the newspaper article, comments were posted on this blog falsely accusing me of some hidden agenda motivated by some unspecified hate to personally attack the accuser. Amazingly, the more than a year long vicious, personal attack to vilify, discredit and threaten me – to make “me” the issue, proved the legitimacy of my original observations in the article and justification for writing it. Here is the relevant comment:
All this foofaraw about trolls and the Thought Police might be funny except for on thing: Two Thousand years of Dark Age thinking. That World and religious empire ruled with such draconian contempt for humanity, one wonders how anyone survived until today. Today we have people only "accused" of thinking like "terrorists," held and tortured indefinitely, coupled with the deliberate annihilation of the civilian populations because "someone that might think like a terrorist" might be hiding somewhere within all that population. Anyone wonder where and how it all got started? 
It got started with simpleminded people like Dave Stancliff and compatriot people that are willing to believe his kind of dogma and impose their thoughts on others all in the name of freedom.
This past week I was really struck by the example set by Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan in contrast with what happened to me. Both are extensively read people that publicly disagreed on a very serious issue confronting every American and our standing in the World. Each one of these guys respected the legitimacy of the other and stuck to dealing with the issues in contention. Neither one got down in the sewer and called the other one out. Their blog conversations remained NON-PERSONAL. Neither one was trying to rule over the other. Neither did they try to get the other to submit to some pre-conditioned right to judge the other's motives. More importantly, they respected the reader's right to decide for themselves what person's offerings had merit and what person is credible.

I'd like to remind a few people that there's a very big difference between making observations and occasionally critiquing the writings or statements people make from personally targeting them as individuals to harass, threaten and intimidate. There's also a big difference between trying to protect your reputation and defending yourself from vicious personal assaults and deliberately harassing someone that disagrees.

Well adjusted, mature adults understand these differences. There are many examples of such people that post daily articles on the Internet. The one positive example that I've tried to emulate is Glenn Greenwald and his blog commentary. Here are a couple of examples of how intelligent, decent, mature and respectful people deal with one another over REALLY serious issues threatening the World and America.

Glenn wrote the following "Obama argues his assassination program is a state secret," then later this follow-up article about President Obama's supposed legal right to assassinate or execute anyone, more importantly an American, simply on the basis of an accusation; an unproven or unsubstantiated lie - a false accusation. The relevance is encapsulated in this quote and the issues he raises here,
“Along with several others, I focused on the DOJ's invocation of the "state secret" privilege because that was most viscerally horrifying: the very idea that the President claims the right not only to order Americans killed with no due process, but to do so in total secrecy beyond the reach of the courts, is -- as Radley Balko and Jamelle Bouie note -- as tyrannical a claim as we've heard in the last decade.”
...go right to the very heart of what's been going on right here on this Report blog.

His article: "Questions for Andrew Sullivan" was in response to his article "The Power To Kill American Citizens At War With The US" is subsequently responded to by Andrew Sullivan in his: "Answers For Glenn Greenwald; Yes, We Are At War." And just today: Sullivan's defense of presidential assassinations. Here is Sullivan's latest, as of this posting, response: "Answers For Glenn Greenwald; Yes, We Are At War, Ctd." People could take a lesson from what Andrew Sullivan says in this last link, even though he hasn't followed up like he said, yet.

The reason I offered these examples is, one, because the basis of Andrew Sullivan's argument is essentially the same made on this blog and other places to justify viciously assaulting this writer -- emotionally driven false or lying accusations as proof to justify, in this case, murder and war. Andrew Sullivan is essentially arguing for tyranny. Here is an excerpt by Glenn Greenwald defining exactly Dave Stancliff's documented course of conduct:
The central rhetorical premise of Bush defenders was that if they just scream "Terrorist!!' and "we're at war!!!!" enough times, and loudly enough, then it would make basic precepts of due process, Constitutional safeguards and the rule of law disappear. If they demonized their targets enough (this is a really bad Terrorist who wants to kill Americans, with nukes if he can!!) -- or manipulatively invoked 9/11 enough times (note Andrew's prominent display of a smoldering WTC photo strategically placed at the top of his argument) -- then it would mean that anything goes, that no compliance with law is or should be required to do anything to them (a claim that always led to the unanswerable question: if it's really so obvious that this is a really bad Terrorist, then why not prove it in court?). [About vigilante law.]
Contrast or compare what he says, "the central rhetorical premise" is "that if" he just screams "hate-filled hypocrite" and "vicious threatening paranoid cowards" "enough times, and loudly enough, it would make basic precepts of due process," or in this case PROVE what you accuse, in harmony with ALL American's "Constitutional personal rights and safeguards and the rule of law,"or in this case, the laws of common decency factually "disappear." They repeatedly scream "hate" and "threats" and the accused becomes a threatening hate-monger - all because they say so - by definition, the essense of tyranny.

This tyrannical lawless conduct is NOT justified or legitimate simply because of President Obama's unconstitutional actions, but because this is the de facto reality of a large section of fundamental, authoritarian extremists enforcing the Rule of Man on everyone. The Rule of Law or the Rule of Man starts at home, with the individual. Enough people enforce mob rule by what they do, you get tyranny.

And two, they simply never get personal with each other. Do you think either one, Greenwald or Sullivan, would become offended if what he did was characterized as "simpleminded"? Maybe, but based upon all the things they say, I doubt they would use it as an excuse to personally attack the other. They stick to the contested issues. They continue to talk to one another like decent human beings. Why? Because the truth is what it is. Because when people believe lawless tyrannical dogma and act on it to cause others to conform to their will, all in the name of freedom and liberty, they are by definition "simpleminded" among other things.

The record is there for anyone to see. It's all a bit tedious and a whole lot offensive. I left it up for anyone that wants to make comparisons. Make up your own mind. Notice the intent, what was done starting with the very first comments posted on this blog at the end of Trolls and the Thought Police about an immediate response, here, and follow-up blogs here and here and finally here.

I decided to post the above article because the comparisons are good examples of what is required to be at peace with your neighbor. In the end you either deal with the reality of each other's existence or one or the other becomes irrelevant. Some believe I'm a gutless coward or have something to hide for writing this blog anonymously behind a pseudonym. Apparently, that is what offered Dave Stancliff the platform he needed to personally and repeatedly assault me with all his false accusations and filthy invectives. The value of the Joe Blow Report is that is stands or falls upon its own merits. People don't read what's written in the Report because of "who" said it, but because of what's written. This is how men recognize the legitimacy of one another. The way to peaceful resolution. The willingness to accredit the other person's right to think or be who and what they are.

The way of the authoritarian extremist, the tyrannical, and the Thought Police is either stop making war on your fellow neighbors to dominate, judge and rule over them or become irrelevant. The day of murder by accusation is at its end. These murderer's are defined, identified and judged by their actions, conduct and attitude. The Universe has always had its way of bringing harmony - one way or another.
[Emphasis added] [Source]

No comments:

Post a Comment