To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » David Peterson's Blog » The Very Definition of Tyranny

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

Recent Peterson Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts

The Very Definition of Tyranny

By David Peterson at Jun 20, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
I am not sure how many luminaries of the American political establishment have called upon the Senate's Minority Whip, Richard Durbin, to apologize, to face the full wrath and fury of the Senate, or even to resign his office, effective immediately, since the otherwise undistinguished Senator from the State of Illinois took to the floor of the Senate's chamber last Tuesday, and chastised the regime in the White House for a good many of its wrongs---not the least of which has been its supra-constitutional assumption of "all the power" on questions of war and peace and the ludicrously labeled Global War on Terror: "legislator, executive, and judge," in Durbin's exact phrase, echoing the absolute powers the current Attorney General once told his client in the Oval Office the Imperial Presidency had every right to assume, the "war against terrorism" being a "new kind of war," rendering "obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners," and all of that. Quoting James Madison's Federalist No. 47, Durbin continued: (S6594, col. 1):
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of a tyranny.
(Actually, Madison's 1788 original was better turned. "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands," Publius wrote, "whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." The point being: The Imperial Presidency headquartered in Washington today is self-appointed.)
From the first, news coverage of Durbin's June 14 remarks gravely misrepresented them. As did his colleagues in the Senate and the House. Including his Democratic colleagues, please note well. As did various spokespeople at the White House and Pentagon---Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan's performance in this respect having been stellar. As did just about everyone else that I've been able to find: The Illinois Republican Party, the Christian Coalition, the Anti-Defamation League, Fox News, the Weekly Standard, Rush Limbaugh ("Al Jazeera loves you, Senator Durbin, probably more than the people that voted for you in Illinois could ever love you"), the editorial voice of the Chicago Tribune, and more commentators that I can mention. "Dick Durbin has slandered the American military," the lunatic John Podhoretz inveighed at the New York Post (June 17). "He has slandered his country. He has defiled truth and he has spat on reason. He has given aid and comfort to all those who seek to use America's tough stance in the War on Terror as a recruiting tool for anti-Americanism." To the best of my knowledge, neither Michael Kinsley nor Fred Kaplan have gotten around to Durbingate. Yet. (Thank god.) Rather than deal with all, or even a substantial part, of Durbin's approximately 5,125-word-long series of remarks, at most, a single paragraph toward the tail-end of those remarks was seized upon (i.e., it occurs some 4,575 words into Durbin's Senate statement), and used like a club against the Senator:
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners
And within this single paragraph, roughly a 12-14 word phrase:
by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--
Now. The Senator, we are lectured, compared or likened or equated U.S. practices at Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray with the "behavior of the evil regimes of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Pol Pot's Cambodia"---here quoting the formula settled on by the former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in his open letter to the Senate, calling on its members to stage a vote to censure Durbin. The upshot of this political strategy being: If the 55 Senate Republicans manage to squeeze a vote out of the 44 Senate Democrats and sole Independent (Jeffords of Vermont) in favor of, or opposed to, censuring Durbin, a record of how everyone voted will be made, and those Senators who vote against censure will forever after be compelled to explain why they cast votes against the honor and the dignity of the United States of America, its brave men and women serving their country in the Armed Forces, and civilized peoples everywhere. (Here paraphrasing the utterly cynical rhetoric to be found in Gingrich's open letter.) In his open letter to the Senate, Gingrich concludes:
A Senate censure of Senator Durbin is justified and would reaffirm a standard for healthy, rational debate. By voting for or against the censure, the rest of the members of the U.S. Senate can go on record and make clear how they judge Senator Durbin's characterization of American soldiers. It will also send a clear message to terrorists who will use the words of a Senate leader against us that the Senate stands in support of America and our military and against those who seek to destroy the free people of the United States. There is historic precedent for censuring Senators whose words bring dishonor and disrepute on the Senate and impair its dignity; Senator Durbin's words fit that precedent. In this case, expressing outrage is not enough. It is time for the Senate to act. Senator Durbin must be censured now.
That Gingrich's ploy---the call for censure in all likelihood welcomed by the majority of his Republican colleagues in the Senate---and one clearly welcomed by the defenders of the Imperial Presidency---must be strenously opposed goes without saying. We do not need to be prisoners to grotesque illusions about the Founding Fathers to smell, in the call to censure the Senator from Illinois, yet another plot on behalf of the Imperial Presidency, and the silencing of dissent. Still. Is it not obvious that an American can be a tyrant---and, in turn, the United States of America a tyranny to the world? "Great power connected with ambition, luxury, and flattery, will as readily produce a Caesar, Caligula, Nero, and Domitian in America, as the same causes did in the Roman empire," in the words of one rightly celebrated Anti-Federalist. What we are witnessing today puts the lot of them to shame.
Senator Richard Durbin, Speaking on Senate Floor, Congressional Record, June 14, 2005, pp. 6591-6595
S6591 (beginning with col. 3) S6592 S6593 S6594 (see esp. col. 3) S6595
"Reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act," Oversight Hearing, Committee of the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, June 10, 2005 "Detainees," Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, June 15, 2005 "Durbin Statement on Guantanamo," Press Release, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, June 15, 2005 "Durbin Statement on Previous Comments Regarding Guantanamo Bay," Press Release, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, June 17, 2005 "Durbin Apologizes on Senate Floor for Guantanamo Bay Analogies," Press Release, U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, June 21, 2005 Letter V, Cato, The Anti-Federalist Papers, November 22, 1787 "The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts," The Federalist Papers: No. 47, "Publius" (James Madison), February 1, 1788 Decision Re Application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War to the Conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Alberto R. Gonzales, January 25, 2002 (a.k.a. the Gonzales Memo) "Press Breifing By Scott McClellan," White House Office of the Press Secretary, June 16, 2005 "Radio Interview of the Vice President by Steve Gill, The Steve Gill Show," White House Office of the Press Secretary, June 17, 2005 "Chairman's Update," Illinois Republican Party, June 17, 2005 "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Calls on U.S. Senate To Censure Senator Richard Durbin," Press Release, Office of Newt Gingrich, June 18, 2005 Censure, U.S. Senate Virtual Reference Desk "U.S. Senator Stands by Nazi Remark," Al Jazeera, June 16, 2005 "Battle of Guantanamo," Tom Brune, Newsday, June 16, 2005 "'Nazi' comment disgraceful," Editorial, Boston Herald, June 17, 2005 "Senator Clinton Calls for Creation of Gitmo Commission," Douglas Turner, Buffalo News, June 17, 2005 "We Are Our History -- Don't Forget It," David Gelernter, Los Angeles Times, June 17, 2005 "Apology Demanded For Remark on U.S.," New York Times, June 17, 2005 "Durbin Defends Guantanamo Comments," Dan Balz, Washington Post, June 17, 2005 "The Lowdown on Guantanamo: Obscene Claims, Real Concerns," Editorial, Rocky Mountain News, June 18, 2005 "Amnesty attacks move to expand Guantanamo prison," Demetri Sevastopulo, Financial Times, June 18, 2005 "Durbin stays on attack over prisoners," Deidre Shesgreen, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 19, 2005 "Frist Insists on Apology For Durbin's Remarks," Washington Post, June 19, 2005 "Durbin's Gitmo remarks draw fire back in Illinois," Donald Lambro, Washington Times, June 19, 2005 "Clinton slams Guantanamo," Lionel Barber and Paul Taylor, Financial Times, June 20, 2005 "Sen. Durbin's Regret for Remarks Not Enough for GOP," Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times, June 20, 2005 "Gitmo Grandstanding: Democrats Fulminate over Guantanamo Prisoners, But They Are Treated Well," Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 20, 2005 "Inside the Beltway," John McCaslin, Washington Times, June 20, 2005 "Atrocious analogy," Mark Steyn, Washington Times, June 20, 2005 "GOP Leaders Pound Durbin," Mark Preston, Roll Call, June 21, 2005 [$$$$$] "In Failing to Denounce Durbin, Democrats Put Politics First," David Winston, Roll Call, June 21, 2005 [$$$$$] "GOP Congressman Calls Democrats Anti-Christian," Mike Allen, Washington Post, June 21, 2005 "Piling On Dick Durbin," Richard Cohen, Washington Post, June 21, 2005 "Frist tells Durbin to apologize on Senate floor," James G. Lakely and Stephen Dinan, Washington Times, June 21, 2005 "Dustbin Durbin," Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Washington Times, June 21, 2005 ...interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet..., ZNet, May 19, 2005 ...must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime..., ZNet, June 19, 2005
Postscript (June 21): For two of the worst commentaries yet to have appeared on the so-called Downing Street Memos:
"No Smoking Gun," Michael Kinsley, Washington Post, June 12, 2005 "Let's Go to the Memo: What's really in the Downing Street memos?" Fred Kaplan, Slate, June 15, 2005
Perhaps you will recall a similar hatchet job that Slate‘s Fred Kaplan performed last fall on the study comparing Iraqi mortality rates, pre- an post-invasion, released by The Lancet on October 29, 2004 ("Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey," Les Roberts et al)? In that exercise ("100,00 Dead—Or 8,000,” Oct. 29), Kaplan dismissed The Lancet study's “estimate [that] there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period,” pretending that the study's authors had claimed only that they were “95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000,” and that the “number cited in plain language—98,000” represented nothing more significant within the totality of the data than the “halfway point in this absurdly vast range,” making their estimate no better than a “dart board.” In other words, Kaplan pretended that The Lancet study itself had asserted an equally high degree of probability for the estimate of 8,000 as it had for the estimate of 194,000 or for the estimate of 98,000, ultimately making the study's findings worthless---a sheer misrepresentation of the study itself claimed. As Kaplan himself went on to conclude about the likely number of Iraqi deaths caused by the American war and occupation:
let's call it 15,000 or—allowing for deaths that the press didn't report—20,000 or 25,000, maybe 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a pre-emptive war waged (according to the latest rationale) on their behalf. That's a number more solidly rooted in reality than the Hopkins figure—and, given that fact, no less shocking.
In shrugging-off the importance of the “Downing Street Memos” today, Fred Kaplan and Michael Kinsley are employing the exact same kind of strategy as Kaplan employed in shrugging-off The Lancet study last fall. Gee. If only we all could be as sophisticated as Fred Kaplan and Michael Kinsley. Postscript (November 29): For more on this creeping---and sometimes galloping---American Tyranny, see:
"Pentagon Expanding Its Domestic Surveillance Activity," Walter Pincus, Washington Post, November 27, 2005
To lift one little passage from this important report, Big Government statists within the U.S. establishment want the government to be big enough and powerful enough to use "leading edge information technologies and data harvesting," which involves "exploiting commercial data" harvested with the help of Corporate America, to spy on you and to spy on me in the hope of catching somebody in the commission of, or in preparation for, allegedly treasonous acts---where what is treasonous ought to be understood in the same open-ended sense as, say, the "War on Terror," with its "unlawful enemy combatants," and its permanent detentions without the constitutional protections of habeas corpus-type rights, on the grounds that the American President has declared that the United States is engaged in a new kind of war, that Soandso is an unlawful enemy combatant in this new war, and therefore that neither constitutional nor international protections apply. Period. For two other analyses of the American Tyranny, see:
"In Terror Cases, Administration Sets Own Rules," Adam Liptak, New York Times, November 27, 2005 "Bush Game on Padilla May Backfire," Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, November 28, 2005
As Adam Liptak reported:
"The term 'enemy combatant,' " according to a Defense Department order last year, includes anyone "part of or supporting Taliban or Al Qaeda forces or associated forces." In a hearing in December in a case brought by detainees imprisoned in the naval facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a judge questioned a Justice Department official about the limits of that definition. The official, Brian D. Boyle, said the hostilities in question were global and might continue for generations. The judge, Joyce Hens Green of the Federal District Court in Washington, asked a series of hypothetical questions about who might be detained as an enemy combatant under the government's definition. What about "a little old lady in Switzerland who writes checks to what she thinks is a charitable organization that helps orphans in Afghanistan but really is a front to finance Al Qaeda activities?" she asked. And what about a resident of Dublin "who teaches English to the son of a person the C.I.A. knows to be a member of Al Qaeda?" And "what about a Wall Street Journal reporter, working in Afghanistan, who knows the exact location of Osama bin Laden but does not reveal it to the United States government in order to protect her source?" Mr. Boyle said the military had the power to detain all three people as enemy combatants.
Always remember the scare tactics that accompany repressive campaigns: The combined notions that the hostilities are global, and that the hostilities will last for generations. Therefore we need to grant the Tyrant the limitless powers he demands over us in order to protect us from harm.
"The Tyrant in Chief," ZNet, May 25, 2005 ...must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime..., ZNet, June 19, 2005 "The Very Definition of Tyranny," ZNet, June 20, 2005 "Super Predator," ZNet, October 7, 2005

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (20)

Person

so what?

By Kissenger, Clark at Jul 15, 2006 06:46 AM
Iran is trying to spread its influence?  Well we can't have that.  We are the only ones allowed to do that.

Reply this comment

50

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Peterson, David at Nov 12, 2005 01:41 AM
Friends: For the published remarks of the philosophy of a tyranny, see:
"Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales at The University of Chicago Law School," U.S. Department of Justice, November 9, 2005

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Otto, Steve at Jun 29, 2005 22:35 PM
to r4d20: How are Sen. Duran's comments harming anything? Because we might offend Middle America? Where has any liberal, Democrat or leftist won anything by appealing to the moderates? I'd like to know because in the 20 years I've been involved in politics, all I've seen of those who use moderate language (myself included for much of that time) is for them to get their asses kicked by loudmouth conservatives making baseless inflammatory statements. The conservative tactics have worked. They said what they really thought and they kicked our ass over and over until they now have complete control of the government. I believe in rejecting tactics that have proven useless. I don't see why we can't say what we think. If something smells like a Nazi, walks and talks like a Nazi, why can't I call it a Nazi. If I offend some Ivory tower intellectual, who cares? How many elections have they won? The people electing leaders in my town are Republicans with single digit I.Q.s. At least they know what a Nazi is. They don't know what a science book is, but they do understand Nazis.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jun 28, 2005 01:12 AM
"The important thing is that we have learned to de-humanize people. Once that begins, we keep sliding down the slopes of fascism, hate and discrimination until the terms “human-rights” and “justice” have no meaning other than being an obvious joke." Thats all true - but tactics matter. Comparing american soldiers to nazis is simply going to alienate large sectors of the public, and even if he has a point, he should be castigated by those who care about this issue for being so tactless. There were many other, more accuracte and, more importantly, More INTELLIGENT, ways to frame his point. There is no excuse for stupidity. Posters here remind me of soviet commisars who tried to run the soviet army. They kept ordering massive frontal attacks and shot any commanders who tried anything more subtle (in an attempt to win with less Russians dying in the process). The extreme anti-bush wing has done the same thing - making stupid rhetorical attacks that hurt their own agenda, while attacking their more intelligent comrades as "waverers" for suggesting a less moronic approach.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Otto, Steve at Jun 27, 2005 20:56 PM
OK, you are sick of hearing about Hitler and Stalin. Fine, they're just names at this point and time. Why not use Snidely Whiplash. The important thing is that we have learned to de-humanize people. Once that begins, we keep sliding down the slopes of fascism, hate and discrimination until the terms “human-rights” and “justice” have no meaning other than being an obvious joke.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jun 27, 2005 04:27 AM
"...because repression is only repression when THEY do it." Nope. 1) I'll paraphrase John Stewart and say "Comparing your opponent to Hitler demeans you, demeans your opponent.....and also demeans Hitler.". Hitler was a vegitarian, but that hardly means that being a vegitarian warrants being called "like Hitler". LEt save the Hitler references for TRUELY deserving actions. 2) On a purely aesthetic level, come on. Hitler and Stalin, Hitler and Stalin, Hitler and Stalin....blah blah blah Cliche! I've decided to do my small part by trying NOT to use them. Rather, I enjoy using less popular historical baddies. There are so many baddies in History that, with a little effort, you can usually find one which fits the specific person much better than Hitler or Stalin. Secondly, you will be more interesting to talk to - not only will you be Cliche-free, but you will look smart and impress your friends and female companions with your incredible historical knowledge --- ok, just kidding about that part. So, lets drop Hitler and Stalin, and pick up some new names. Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, Ivan the Terrible, Qin Shihuandi, Elizabeth Bathory....

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jun 27, 2005 03:52 AM
"(Actually, Madison's 1788 original was better turned. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands,” Publius wrote, “whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The point being: The Imperial Presidency headquartered in Washington today is self-appointed.)" Actually...... The quote clearly says that too much concentration of power in a single pair of hands is bad regardles of how it came to be there. The point is that it does not matter if the Bush Administration is selfappointed or duly elected, it is still acting in a way dangerous for democracy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Otto, Steve at Jun 24, 2005 21:08 PM
Sen. Dick Durbin apologized for telling the truth- Note to Democrats –“Please get a back-bone” Everything he said was true. Do all of us need to fear the media pundit godheads, such as Rush Limbaugh? Enough is enough. All leftist should arrise and defend those who speak the truth.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Leemeade, Meade at Jun 23, 2005 00:34 AM
Durbin 'apology' was stomach turning. What did he have to say sorry for? He told the American people the truth about the people they voted to rule them. The truth, i guess, still hurts. Americans do not want to be reminded that they are responsible for this horror. Remind them each and every day until they wake up!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Organum, Baby at Jun 22, 2005 20:19 PM
If you fight a war on terror, drugs and crime. And are willing to use armed force against sovereig states. Then the CaymanIslands and the other known freezones for taxevasion and laundering should be your first goal. Brings this Question to mind: Who provides those two billion you borrow each day ? Wanna know ?

Reply this comment

50

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Peterson, David at Jun 22, 2005 08:00 AM
Friends: The undistinguished Democratic Senator from the State of Illinois fails to distinguish himself---again:
"Durbin Apologizes on Senate Floor for Guantanamo Bay Analogies," Press Release, U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, June 21, 2005
Excerpting three sentences from it here:
"I made reference to the Nazis, Soviets and other repressive regimes.” "I have come to understand that was a very poor choice of words. I tried to make this very clear last Friday that I understood those analogies to the Nazis, Soviets and others were poorly chosen."
Says who? Says the American Right, that's who---which covers pretty much everybody who is somebody within the political establishment. Richard Durbin has picked up the club that his attackers had been swinging at him, and now swings it against himself. How's this for cowering? And yet, I'll bet that it still doesn't turn out to be good enough. Can't help but wonder whether Durbin will wind up apologizing for the rest of his 5,000-word-plus remarks of June 14? And which from among the other 5,000 he'd still affirm?
S6591 (beginning with col. 3) S6592 S6593 S6594 (see esp. col. 3) S6595
Sticking to the most obvious facts about Operation Iraqi Liberation (Oops! I mean Operation Iraqi Freedom), the fact of the matter is that the White House waged an aggressive, criminal war---and nobody is free of its taint, beginning with the political leaders who orchestrated it, and who continue to support it, to the highest ranking military personnel who planned it, to the lowest grunts who executed it. Most of us fall somewhere within the ring of culpability, I'm afraid. Little Eichmanns all. Contrary to Durbin, however, none of the participants in this joint criminal enterprise deserve our respect, admiration or support. In fact, they deserve to be condemned---and prosecuted. Beginning with the political leadership, of course. Which brings me to the non-trivial reminder that, beginning this Friday, June 24, the 16th and final session of the World Tribunal on Iraq will convene in Istanbul, with quite an impressive array of participants. Early press releases announce that the agenda will include the "torture of prisoners" and the "unlawful imprisonment of Iraqi civlians without charges or legal defense." Most amusing of all, the AScribe Newswire reports that:
On May 17, a formal letter was delivered to the White House and U.S. and UK embassies in capitals around the world -- including Istanbul, Tokyo, Lisbon, and Brussels -- on behalf of the World Tribunal on Iraq. The summons requested the attendance of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to defend charges that they are in "violation of common values of humanity, international treaties, and international law" for waging war in Iraq. The summons was signed by leading international figures, including international legal scholar Richard Falk and former Assistant UN Secretary General Dennis Halliday. White House press secretary Scott McClellan denied any knowledge of the summons. President Bush is not expected to attend.
Still. It never hurts to try. As you'll find by checking the Tribunal's website, audio- and video-streaming will be available. More on this Durbin another time.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Bok, Yakov at Jun 22, 2005 07:06 AM
What's funny is that Zneters are so zealously "anti-tyranical," yet fail to mention the tyranny of Iran. Iran controls Hezzbolah who controls more of Lebanon than Syria did. Not to mention that Iran has a huge influence over Syria through Hezzbolah's presence in that country as well. Hezzbolah, aka Iran, is now training Hamas. That means that Iran is trying to widen it's influence even wider. Don't forget Hezzbolah's presence in Sierra Leone, home to, one of the worst attrocities in the modern world. So, we're going after Iran no - so what?

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

By Street, Paul at Jun 22, 2005 06:03 AM
Read about Durbin's tearful apology at http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/062105_ns_durbin.html Senator Durbin took especially harsh criticism from Chicago Democratic Mayor Richard M. Daley. He is deeply sorry for having seemed excessively critical of the new American proto-fascist militarism.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Organum, Baby at Jun 21, 2005 23:55 PM
But depending on the objective of an attack, some action is of course possible. Destroying Irans growing economy ? Iran needs to make a wrong move first though. Bases surrounding Iran puts pressure on Mullahs with military advisors sweating and secularists wanting to dance the night away. No CIA biggie needed.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Rekouche, Koceilah at Jun 21, 2005 22:51 PM
I don't see any way we are going to start a conventional war with Iran (CIA backed coups, etc being another story). 1) Its not even clear that the executive branch "got away" with the last war. Its ongoing, the military is entrenched and exhausted, and the leaders who lied, while not being held accountable for their criminal actions just yet, are far less persuasive and powerful than pre-Iraq war when so many were still hypnotized by 9/11 and the perceived need to "fight back". 2) Iran even without nukes has plenty of conventional weapons to fight back with. If we were strike Tehran all out, they would strike Israel. We are not going to allow that to happen. I'm not talking 1 or 2 scuds inaccurately falling down on Irsaeli cities, like what happened in the Gulf war. Iran is capable of very significant destruction. Ritter mentions some CIA operations and thats what probably is our main strategy.. Undermining the current regime using internal opposition in combination with external political pressure.

Reply this comment

50

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Peterson, David at Jun 21, 2005 20:52 PM
Friends:
"The US war with Iran has already begun," Scott Ritter, Al Jazeera, June 20, 2005

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Organum, Baby at Jun 21, 2005 19:43 PM
Spirit free you from Belsebush and wake you from the american dream before all is laid waste. Why do all good ideas and institutions become corrupted by larvae ?

Reply this comment

50

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Peterson, David at Jun 21, 2005 16:46 PM
Friends: Looking over the cases of Expulsion and Censure reported on the U.S. Senate's Virtual Reference Desk, we find charges of corruption, disloyalty, treason, rebellion, and the like. It is worth emphasizing, I believe, that the attacks that have been made against the Democratic Senator Richard Durbin include disloyalty, treason, besmirching the good name of the United States of America, and sympathy with "enemy." (I place the latter in quotes specifically because an enemy is whomever the United States says it is, by nothing more than the sheer power and fiat of a violent predator state seizing foreign nationals outside U.S. territory, and shipping them off to god-only-knows what prison, and unlawfully detaining them.) Now. Would anyone care to read the text of Durbin's June 14 remarks on the floor of the Senate, and show me where Durbin has misspoken?
S6591 (beginning with col. 3) S6592 S6593 S6594 (see esp. col. 3) S6595
What, by any valid historical comparison, in truth is the far right, these days counts as the "center" within the American political establishment.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Rekouche, Koceilah at Jun 21, 2005 15:41 PM
"A Senate censure of Senator Durbin is justified and would reaffirm a standard for healthy, rational debate." Translation: healthy, rational debate means debating only within the margins of the hard-right. "By voting for or against the censure, the rest of the members of the U.S. Senate can go on record and make clear how they judge Senator Durbin's characterization of American soldiers." Criticism of White House policy is criticism of the American Soldier. As Bush is America incarnate, any criticism of him is criticsm of America. "It will also send a clear message to terrorists who will use the words of a Senate leader against us that the Senate stands in support of America and our military and against those who seek to destroy the free people of the United States." The Senator is not only a hater of American Soldiers, but is also with the terrorists, as he speaks their ideology. Cleary, if we were any patriots at all, we'd send Durbin to Camp X-ray to live with his like. to·tal·i·tar·i·an Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Very Definition of Tyranny

By Bok, Yakov at Jun 21, 2005 07:26 AM
How does Mr. Peterson have any credibilty when it comes to writing on tyranny? On one hand he continuously bashes the U.S., and on the other hand defends Slobodan Milosevic.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (20)

Loading_border