[Vision2020] Beating dead horses

Wed May 30 08:14:06 PDT 2012

Concerning Al-Awlaki:  I agree with you 1,000%.  Al-Awlaki should have been
captured and held for trial by a United Nations tribunal.  That would have
been the moral thing to do.

Concerning who is/isn’t a militant:  That has become the “gray area” of
combat operations, since the advent of gorilla-warfare (introduced in the
Korea conflict and “amped up” in Vietnam).

Would the US have been considered immoral to bomb a Nazi munitions factory
in WW2 if that factory contained Jewish forced labor?  That’s a tough one.

Was Lt. Calley, and his platoon, immoral for assaulting and killing women
and children in the village of My Lai, South Vietnam, after receiving
confirmed reports of Viet Cong inhabiting that village?  My answer is “Yes”.
However, it must be emphasized that not all Viet Cong were males between the
ages of 18 and 60.  There have been several instances of Viet Cong “suicide
bombers”, many were women and children, with bombs strapped to their bodies
as they entered US observation posts and compounds, resulting in letters to
next-of-kin.

In addition to those “non-military aged” combatants killed as a result of
such operations, there are other (just as severe) remnants of “collateral
damage”, such as . . .

Bill, good friend of mine that I met while attending North Idaho College (I
mentioned this earlier on the Viz), suffered from PTSD.  He and I shared
more than a couple beers discussing our times in the military.  I learned
from him what caused his PTSD.

Bill was an artilleryman in the Marines in Vietnam.  As an artilleryman, his
team would receive missions that simply included grid coordinates and the
types and levels of shelling to conduct.  Many times his team was called on
to use white phosphorus shells (extremely incendiary).  He never had the
“opportunity” to see the results of his team’s shelling up close until . . .

Bill’s team was called on to conduct white phosphorus saturation shelling of
a target approximately one square kilometer in size.  His team hit the
target heavily for, what he felt, was a couple hours.  After the fires and
smoke had degenerated, Bill and his team were ordered to conduct a recon
patrol of the target . . . a village of hootches containing the burned
bodies of elderly women and children.  It was learned that there were VC in
the village, but they had cleared out long before the shelling began.

I haven’t had any contact with Bill in quite a while.  I only hope that is
at peace with himself.

So, you see, Sunil (and I am paraphrasing here) . . .

War NEVER proves who is right, only who is left.

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Sunil Ramalingam
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:51 AM
Cc: vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Beating dead horses

Tom,

You are right, it is confusing, primarily because it's poorly written. I was
thinking of the Al-Awlaki murder when I wrote the first sentence, and am
referring specifically to that killing in my first sentence.

The second quote goes to the Obama administration's position (or lie) that
it's killing militants with its drone campaign; they can make it because of
their expansive definition of 'militants.'

I should be more clear when I write. For clarity's sake, let me say I find
both categories of killing disgusting and illegal, and I can't support
someone who is doing this.

Sunil

  _____  

CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
From: thansen at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Beating dead horses
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 06:31:14 -0700
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com

Sunil -

I am puzzled a little, honestly, by your comments.

Are you addressing "ALL [my emphasis] military age males in a strike zone"
or just those that are US citizens (as suggested by your opening sentence)?

If the former, I will have more to say.  If the latter, I kinda (in spirit)
agree with you.

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

"If not us, who?

If not now, when?"

- Unknown

On May 30, 2012, at 6:03, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
wrote:

Chuck (or is it Chick?)

I'm looking for the section in the Constitution that says the President, on
his own say so, can kill US citizens, without due process. Where is it?

Here's Greenwald on this issue, yesterday:

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/obama_the_warrior/singleton/

Here's something to be proud of: "Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for
counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect
counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to
several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence
posthumously proving them innocent." (From this other Greenwald article
yesterday:
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/singleton/ )

Yep, if we killed them, they must have been militants, unless someone proves
otherwise, after they're dead. Of course, when we send drones back to kill
rescuers and mourners, it may be hard to prove the innocence of the murder
victims. And we should believe the state, because Obama's president, right?
If he says it, it must be true? How many Obama supporters took the same
position when Bush was president?

How can we 'eliminate al Quaeda' when every time we blow up people, we help
them recruit?

Sunil

  _____  

Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:59:39 -0700
From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
To: ckovis at turbonet.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Beating dead horses

Mr. Kovis,

It concerns me that you don't know the difference between an opinion piece
and an article strictly written with

empirical facts backed by several sources for accuracy. One is subjective,
and the other is objective.

You can post 100s of opinion pieces by anti-war, anti-Obama, or anti-current
US policy writers, it doesn't substantiate your claims that Obama is
targeting innocent civilians.

"When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to
enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda - even when
it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama
told colleagues was "an easy one."

This is not the full truth, which makes it a lie.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaed
a.html> If you read the article which the opinion writer is referring to,
you would see that Obama has only targeted 15 Yemen with American ties, all
plotting an attack on American soil. It doesn't matter if someone is a
cleric from Mukalla, Yemen, or Moscow, Russia, or Moscow, Idaho, if they are
plotting to kill Americans in the United States or elsewhere, I say more
power to the President to bring a drone plane down on their head.

It appears to me, you reject any policy the US has of eliminating Al Qaeda,
an organization that plotted, funded, and executed 3,000 American civilians,
including children, and would do it again given a chance. 

Donovan J. Arnold

From: Chuck Kovis <ckovis at turbonet.com>
To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> 
Cc: "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:32 PM
Subject: Beating dead horses

>From the New York Times via Reader Supported News:

"In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and
former advisers described Mr. Obama's evolution since taking on the role,
without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the
shadow war with Al Qaeda.  They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned
the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at
Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing.
While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with
the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and
dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism,
it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al
Qaeda - even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a
decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was "an easy one."  "  (My emphasis)

I opposed Democrat Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War.  I oppose Democrat
Barack Obama and the Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Iran Wars.  When you have
a constitutional law professor saying that it is "an easy one" to kill a
fellow U.S. citizen without what passes now days for "due process,"  don't
expect me to go along with it.  I find it disgusting that more people in
this country don't have the guts to put a stop to this at the ballot box.
As a country, we will never learn, when  a former SDS'er is an apologist for
a President who says the decision to kill a fellow human being and fellow
American citizen is easy.         Chuck Kovis

======================================================= List services made
available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120530/c937091f/attachment-0001.html>