mlah The ďcultureĒ that has evolved here isnít conducive to sissies

June 12, 2006


Filed under: Politics — mlah @ 8:37 pm

what the fuck?

the press actually believes the bogus claims that zarqawi got roughed up a bit on his way to ‘abandon all hope’ as he passed the arch?

i know some of you readers actually believe that the role of the press is to challenge the administration. that’s a load of crap.

here’s a hard little lesson in the english language.

the role of reporters, is to report. don’t tell me what it means. i’ll decide for myself. and damn sure don’t tell me it’s true, or that i can’t believe something is true. i’m free. i’ll do whatever i want.

the role of the mass media? challenege the administration? only when conservatives are in power. (and i use that term generously when talking about shrub) NO! the role of the media is to air the news. it is not to spin the news.

and their role is very definitely supposed to include a modicum of fact verfication. let’s skip the rathergate and look at the alqaeda training manual.

1 . At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators ]before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.

3. Make arrangements for the brother ís defense with the attorney, whether he was retained by the brother ís family or court-appointed.

4. The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge.[These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.]

5. Some brothers may tell and may be lured by the state security investigators to testify against the brothers [i.e. affirmation witness ], either by not keeping them together in the same prison during the trials, or by letting them talk to the media. In this case, they have to be treated gently, and should be offered good advice, good treatment, and pray that God may guide them.

6. During the trial, the court has to be notified of any mistreatment of the brothers inside the prison.

now that asstard who claims we beat zarqawi prior to his death?

first, who cares.

second, i heard it best at work today.

“what? they think we dropped two 500 pound bombs on him and then rushed over there for a high calibre debriefing? they don’t think we had a few questions to ask him first?”
morons.. if there was any way, zarqawi would be alive, answering some questions.


  1. Oh, so now you’re a journalism professor?
    All the reports I’ve seen about the question of Z having been beaten use words like “A man who lives nearby claimed…” and the like, which is the essence of responsible reporting. Believe nobody.
    Show me one single instance of any news org stating the beating as fact, jerkoff.

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — June 13, 2006 @ 1:36 am

  2. The mass media sides with those who are popular and those who are not. They side with whatever will bring ratings. If fact makes in in there it’s usually by accident or just by the odds that if you make enough stuff up eventually some of it is bound to be true.

    Either way he was going to die. Saddam is going to die in the end so why bother with the trial?

    Conservative and liberal governments are the same. Except you hear how God is our our side more when a conservative government is in power… but I digress.

    Comment by Sean — June 13, 2006 @ 7:16 am

  3. On a random note… Can you tell me why G W Bush hasn’t been impeached? He’s actually done some illegal shit and he still stays in office… But Clinton gets a hummer and they try to run him out of office. Hummers don’t hurt anyone. If everyone got a hummer a day there would be no war.

    Oh… I guess that would bring up how gay hummers violate the institution of hummers and that gay hummers don’t promote family values… Forget about the hummers.

    Comment by Sean — June 13, 2006 @ 7:26 am

  4. “Can you tell me why G W Bush hasnít been impeached?”
    The Congress is majority-Republican and they control such proceedings. Things might get interesting after the elections next November, though! Still, if GWB is impeached, then Dick “Trick Shot-Fuck Off!” Cheney would become president, and who really wants that?

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — June 13, 2006 @ 7:51 pm

  5. gw hasn’t been impeached because he hasn’t done anything illegal. if he did, then he would be impeached.

    clinton was impeached because he lied while testifying under oath to congress. NOT because he received oral sex.

    Comment by mlah — June 13, 2006 @ 8:13 pm

  6. I guess if you ignore the law then the NSA wiretaps he ordered were not illegal.

    As I’m sure you have heard the 1934 Communications act requires that warrants be issued for the information. That was not done. In fact Qwest is the only phone company that refused to compromise the privace of it’s customers. Apparently they have not been asked again since.

    If you are as staunchly conservative as I think you are you will actually believe that this is helping and comforting terrorists. The fact of the matter is that terrorists used compromised cell phones. Like stealing accounts from executives and rack up huge bills because it is unlikely that a CEO’s account will get nixed. Or how about the huge PC networks of compromised computers that form botnets they use to communicate. I would love to see statistics on how many terrorists were caught after spying on countless innocents.

    I guess the last stand here is the “If you don’t have anything to hide then why do you care” argument. Mlah, I’ll give you credit and assume this argument wouldn’t come from you. However there are those who believe that.

    First they can listen to what you say… then they can come in your house without a warrant and then what? No privacy. You have a police state. I know thats an extreme view but aside from prohibition what was the last freedom that was taken away and then returned? I can’t think of any.

    Comment by Sean — June 13, 2006 @ 8:59 pm

  7. you need to look into ww2. tons of freedoms were suspended and then promptly returned at the end of the war.

    but no sean. there is a dispute as to whether or not the fisa act was broken. or whether it in fact applies to the president. you are just assuming one side of the argument is fact, and not considering the controversy.

    nothing to hide, so you shouldn’t care? i just know that it’s much more likely for the private citizens or orgs to buy what they need at radio shack and invade my privacy than it is for the government. and i’m more confidant that the government is much more likely to NOT post my dirty laundry on the internet.

    Comment by mlah — June 13, 2006 @ 10:23 pm

  8. Sean,

    Last week the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bush administration on wiretaps. Also I hope you didn’t say “bomb” or “kill” over the phone after 1996 when Clinton used the NSA to record certain key words without a warrant.

    Comment by Jen — June 14, 2006 @ 12:22 am

  9. WW2 was a whole other animal. The government did things wrong and admitted it. For example, and for lack of a better term “imprisonment” of Japanese Americans. They have since been givin reparations for it… the few that were still alive got reparations anyways.

    Just because the government decides it doesn’t mean its right or that it should be legal. Yes, they are the law makers but we put them there to make laws that are good for us. Do you honestly believe that this freedom of privacy (or aspect of it) will ever be returned? Do you really honestly believe that terrorism will ever go away? It’s been here forever and as long as there are extremists of any kind there will be terrorists. Wait until they all out ban smoking. Extremist smokers. Fucking scary.

    Everything about the wiretaps goes against what I see as right and fair. To invade your life they are supposed to have probable cause. How long before it gets abused?

    Comment by Sean — June 14, 2006 @ 6:33 am

  10. President Clinton started the wiretapping bit with NSA, by the way. NOT President Bush. That’s old news.

    Comment by Madame Butterfly — June 14, 2006 @ 9:48 am

  11. Sean: sky’s falling? Then start wearing your tin foil hat to protect yourself.

    Have you considered 50USC in your total dismissal of NSA’s operations? Do you know the difference between 18USC and 50USC? Have you actually read FISA, or are you getting your sound bites from the likes of Katie Couric? Or are you stuck in 1934’s technological realm? If so, I have some vaccuum tubes to sell you…..

    As Mlah pointed out, there is much more probability of your friends and neighbors snooping on you than the government. The probable cause you lament them not having is actually a link to known or suspected terrorists abroad. The You throw down the techno gauntlet with compromised cell phones and botnets. Pray tell, from what evidence do you draw this theory?

    You also start out by flatly stating the NSA operations are illegal, and thus the President’s ordering them is illegal and impeachment worthy. Then, when challenged on the legality issue, you state that regardless of what “the government” says, it’s still wrong. Just plain wrong! So, will you rant against the income tax and massive socialist wealth redistribution programs that have accreted in our society, as well? Will you whine about the maximum speed limit and use of radar guns, or state-sponsored educational institutions? Because none of that was around when our nation was founded.

    Are you one of those pining for an agrarian society that plans its calendar around the harvest? Luny over all those technological advancements we’ve had that allow unlimited access to every piece of data you could imagine? Let’s shut down the Internet!! Because the pimply-faced fat-assed kid at a college computer system will be ever more so intrusive than the government could hope to be. Just ask Gus!

    Are you seriously equating the government listening in on some terrorist suspects to locking up the Nissei in WWII? Are you really?

    Oooh, the government can kick down your door and come into your home, not just listen to your conversations. Just ask Elian Gonzalez. Oh the Branch Davidians. The government has powers, and those powers can be abused! So let’s get rid of the government! Is that what your real agenda is, Sean? Are you one of those anarchists pining for the freedom to live like the Wild West never passed into history?

    Comment by yup — June 14, 2006 @ 2:08 pm

  12. oh, and Sean, you really should be complaining about the marketing conglomarates, who track your every purchase using credit card, club card, and the like; who track the television shows you watch on cable, the movies you rent at Blockbuster; who call your house to snoop into your life; who peek into your credit history; and all those things you think the government does with impunity to all of its citizens. Madison Avenue is your foe, frind, not the government.

    Comment by yup — June 14, 2006 @ 2:16 pm

  13. You go Yup!!!! Give the man a beer!!! (B)

    Comment by Madame Butterfly — June 14, 2006 @ 6:31 pm

  14. Compromised cell

    That’s an example of a cell phone being cloned and then used by terrorists. Botnets only get used for spam and DDOS attacks but the fact of the matter is that there are millions of computers ready to be used.
    I admit I have found no articles about botnets being used for terrorism but the potential is there if you read up on what they do and can do.

    No, I haven’t read FISA in it’s entirety and even if I had I probably wouldn’t have fully understood it. The same goes with USC Title 18 and 50 . I got pissed off by your comment to me so I read more in to it and I accept that you owned me. I’m in Canada so I get all my news second hand (through CNN or other various news outlets). My reaction is admittedly a knee-jerk …hearing that rights were seemingly curtailed by your governement. Up here when our governement spies on us it generally hides it very well… with notable exceptions (

    Are you seriously equating the government listening in on some terrorist suspects to locking up the Nissei in WWII? Are you really?

    Yes. The rights of a group were suspended during war. Their rights were suspended because the gov thought there were spies among them. They couldn’t prove who so they took them all. Here. I’ll go tin foil hatty on you since I have been accused already. I think the only reason your government hasn’t locked up all the middle eastern people is because there are too many and your army is spread a little thin right now.

    I don’t really think that last part but I do actually think the 2 equate. The law makes it so they can spy on everyone but it’s only a group within that they are going after. Maybe my fervor was aimed at the wrong president but I still think it’s wrong to erode away our privacy. Even if it is to catch terrorists.

    You pay more for shit with vacuum tubes by the way.

    Comment by Sean — June 14, 2006 @ 9:03 pm

  15. Alleged NSA operations: (1) surveille without warrants (iaw 50USC) persons within the US who have demonstrated links to terrorists abroad, who are themselves targets of military operations, such surveillance used to determine whether to pursue legal options (18USC) or military options (50USC) against the person based on Long War operations and threat to life; (2) procure the commercially available data (ie, also used by private firms and agencies for their own nefarious purposes) collected by telecommunications companies in order to run pattern analysis algorithms based on communications patterns observed with terrorists abroad and their global operations (which, btw Sean, may also include stuff like your cloned phones and botnet strawmen for all we know).

    So how is any of that trampling on rights? How is any of that infringing on citizens’ privacy? How is any of that comparable to rounding up a whole mess of people, including citizens, based solely on their race, and then taking away their property, throwing whole families into prison camps located in inhospitable climates with minimal attempts to weatherproof the barracks, and keeping them there despite habeas corpus and other legal preventatives?

    My experiences with the Canadian government lead me to believe they are extrememly careful of the rights of their citizenry, including privacy rights. To have a government agency keeping records of government payouts and their effects on social welfare (your LLFF link) are, gasp, actually good business practise, because that way you can measure the success (or failure) of your policy. Show me any business that is willing to pay out for operations without having any idea whether those operations are profitable. I’ll show you a company then that is quickly headed for bankruptcy. This is a power you (the citizenry of Canada) delegated to your government when you demanded such social programs. You get what you paid for. And the information being kept is all public information — which Canadian citizens have themselves provided to the government through tax returns, insurance filings, etc.

    What about the estimated 4.5 million new felons (mostly in the Western provinces) created by the Parliament when they banned unregistered firearms back in 2000? Shouldn’t you be more concerned about legislating into existence a whole new criminal class of citizens?

    Comment by yup — June 15, 2006 @ 12:51 am

  16. That paragraph seems pretty clear. Why is it that groups like the EFF are all over this like they are violating something just as clear. The law can be pretty ambiguous in some cases, but that seems like a really clear defenition.

    The majority of people targetted by these actions will be of middle eastern descent. Sure their whole families don’t get throw in to camps but where do they end up?

    Can you tell me that these people (who cares about the guilty ones) don’t lose everything by being locke up for 2, 3 or even 4 years without charges being laid? The fact that
    some were released
    without charge shows at least in some small way that errors were made. So, what have you been up to these last 3 years?… Oh… You were being held as a terrorist suspect. Yeah, here’s a job! Even if cleared and released there is still a stigma that will haunt them in life. Not to mention the personal trauma.

    The problem Canadians had witht he gathering and use of the information in the LLFF was that they didn’t ask us. I can agree that we more or less asked for it indirectly with our demands for social programs. We railed against it for the same reason that any rails against something that is done without permission.

    The gun registry was a ridiculous waste of money… but as a note they were given a chance to register their firearms. In fact they still can register their firearms and not face charges. Don’t get me wrong. I think the gun registry was stupid, however it was still done and people were
    given the time to make their ownership legitimate
    in the eyes of our stupid new law.

    Comment by Sean — June 15, 2006 @ 7:42 am

  17. Secret prisons! Gitmo! In the words of Gus, that is so six months ago. The people detained in Gitmo (and supposedly in these alleged secret prisons) were combatants caught in the attempt to do harm to the US. They were figthing US troops on foreign soil, they were caught hanging out with terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan, they were turned over by allies such as Pakistan, etc. They are foreigners taken outside the US, mostly people from places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Xinjiang, etc. In other words, not the types who really have to worry too much about their resumes when applying to blue chip companies. Unless you feel that job applications are so selective in the Third World? And you still have the absolute gall to compare them to the Japanese detainees of WWII?

    A couple of them (such as Reid and Padilla) could be considered “US persons” who were swept up in the process of planning or committing their acts of terror either in or en route to the US, and were imprisoned with the foreign gang. But the courts have already ruled that those caught in the US, or who are US citizens, cannot be held in the quasi-foreign camps like Gitmo. But seriously, people like Reid applying to be CEO of AT&T? Sure, I really worry about his job prospects for future should he beat the rap against him.

    Oh yeah, we’ve released people because they were so low on the terror totem that they were considered no longer dangerous, or there was so much political pressure to release them that they they were not vetted properly, or they were wily enough to not have specific proof against them. None of them have ever gone on to commit acts of terror after their release, now, have they? (You ever hear of Abdullah Mehsud?)

    Why do EFF and ACLU cry foul so loudly? Well, there’s money to be made in standing up to “Big Brother” for one thing. There’s BDS for another. Folks like EFF see any act by the government as harmful to their self interests, period. Only private citizen hackers like themselves (and of course the ubiquitous Madison Avenue cabals) should be able to surreptitiously obtain private information about other people.

    So the Parliament decided all of a sudden to create a whole new category of felon, made up of formerly law abiding citizens, overturning centuries of tradition in the name of social engineering, and you shrug it off by saying that at least the government gave its people the choice of submitting to new regulation of formerly free activity or face consequences. You do recall that the first thing Gorby did when he sent troops into Estonia et al was shut down/lock up the gun clubs? You know, the only places citizens were allowed by the government to have access to firearms? Gee, and you probably wonder why the heck those US Founders enshrined the citizens’ right to keep firearms.

    Funny, you didn’t initially strike me as a person who believes that the citizenry should be beholden to the government and not the other way around.

    Comment by yup — June 15, 2006 @ 12:37 pm

  18. First I’m an anarchist and now I’m beholden to the government. Like it’s impossible to have a different opinion from one separate item to the next. One extreme to the next.

    I would have a bigger problem with the gun registry if it allowed them to kick your door down and look through your house just because you know someone that has guns.

    Comment by Sean — June 15, 2006 @ 7:58 pm

  19. You worry about the govt kicking down your door and searching your house because you know someone who has guns, but apparently have no problems with the government kicking down your door if you actually own guns?

    Is this some anemic way of equating your fear of the govt kicking down your door if you talk on the phone with terrorists, or chat online with terrorists, or post your pro-terror plans on a terrorist website? But I thought you were really upset about the govt surveilling you if you were engaged in one of these things.

    If the govt has gathered enough information due to that surveillance to convince them that you are, by your words and expressed opinions, a terrorists engaged in financing, planning, or carrying out terrorist operations, why would you not expect them to come knocking at your door?

    So your problem is really with the govt actually coming to stop you from carrying out your terrorist plans (kicking in your door, as you put it)? Is that what you’re saying?

    Comment by yup — June 16, 2006 @ 12:08 am

  20. Buy ambien onlline.

    Buy ambien onlline.

    Trackback by Buy ambien onlline. — February 19, 2008 @ 9:35 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress