Month: May 2004

Frank Paynter makes an interesting claim on his Sandhill Trek blog

Since March 20, 2003 I have been arrested twice for symbolic and non-violent acts of civil disobedience in protest of the wars that the Bush administration has chosen to enter. The crimes were misdemeanors, and the punishments were modest. The judges were pleased to have us in the court room, and the police were uniformly courteous as they performed their duties. Times have changed since the days when symbolic protest was met with violence, incarceration, and felony convictions in my community. These minor acts of civil disobedience in opposition to the Bush regime are the least I can do to stand up for what I know to be true regarding the administration and its wanton foreign policy. By standing up against the Bush regime in this small way, I earn the right to criticize it.

Frank’s objection to the Bush Administration’s wars of liberation in Afghanistan and Iraq, as far as I can tell, is some sort of violation of international law owing to the lack of the UN’s blessing:

…I do know that the Bush unilateralism made it impossible to bring the full force of international law into play. And I opposed the Bush war on Afghanistan, as I oppose a so called WAR on terrorism and the war on drugs.

There seems to be a basic contradiction here. How can a person engage in acts of civil disobedience that violate the law in the interest of a personal moral conviction against a political leader who himself is acting in accordance with a personal moral conviction that happens to violate international law, in the opinion of the protester? In other words, how can you break the law to protest someone else’s breaking the law and still consider yourself a moral actor?

I put that question to Mr. Paynter, he offered an answer, but now he’s erased it. Any other moral snobs who share Mr. Paynter’s point of view are welcome to explain the reasoning to me.

Here’s a little background on Lynndie England, the good-time girl in the Abu Ghraib prison torture incident:

Spc. England frequently visited Graner, a one-time Pennsylvania prison guard. There are published reports Graner had a history of domestic violence.

CBS News has learned England and Graner, both divorced, were involved in a romantic relationship in Iraq and that England is four months pregnant with Graner’s child.

So she’s soon to be a mother, and she gets off on violent men. She hails from a trailer park in West Virginia, the state that elected a member of the KKK to represent them in the US Senate. It all sort of fits together, doesn’t it?

Of course it does, and appropos my last post, check Donna Britt:

Mom’s Day notwithstanding, old stereotypes of women as viscerally compassionate peacekeepers are being challenged everywhere. Violence in the United States remains overwhelmingly male-dominated. Studies conducted by the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire in 1975, 1985 and 1992 found that domestic abuse rates were equal between husbands and wives. In fact, evidence suggested that abuse of wives by husbands is decreasing while abuse of husbands by wives is increasing. The nation’s No. 1 movie, “Mean Girls,” depicts a teeny-bopper swept up in the vicious, back-stabbing world of high school cliques.

Cruelty is not a gender issue.

The fingerprints of Portland lawyer with terrorist connections were found on a bag in Madrid, so the dude’s been busted:

Federal agents on Thursday detained a Washington County lawyer in connection with the deadly March 11 terrorist attack in Madrid — the first American connection to the worst terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001.

Brandon Mayfield, 37, who lives in [Portland suburbe] Aloha and played a minor legal role in the Portland Seven terrorism case, was picked up at his West Slope law office on a material witness hold Thursday morning, said Tom Nelson, Mayfield’s attorney.

Mr. Totten points out that a bomb was found on a local commuter train in Portland not long ago. Coincidence?

I would personally not want to mess with Tammy Bruce if I were terrorist scum.

Link via Tim Blair

Honest left-wing journo Marc Cooper has busted Michael Moore for spinning a web of lies about Disney in order to hype his latest project:

Below find an exclusive full text copy of the article by Andrew Gumbel which will appear in Thursday’s London-based daily The Independent which quotes inside sources saying there is nothing new in Disney’s red light, that Moore knew it was a no-go from the outset. After you’ve read Andrew’s piece take a look at this L.A. Weekly column I wrote in March describing Moore as the Ann Coulter of the left.

Chances of the New York Times publishing a retraction to its overheated story of Moore’s oppression are practically nil, I suppose.

BTW, Cooper’s LA Weekly article is as insightful about Moore as anything you’ll ever read:

Moore?s shtick is to deftly read the emotional contours of the liberal left and then to profitably mold and expand himself to fill the void. He?s a polarizer, not a teacher. His ramped-up stage style, shouting and screaming profanities at Dubya, no doubt provides some satisfying moments for the already-converted but can only alienate and confound those still in doubt.

And all the more damning because Cooper’s very much a Man of the Left.

Link via Roger L. Simon.

Matt Welch explores the subtle moral distinctions that led prominent leftists to support the liberation of Kosovo and oppose similar action in Iraq in this piece for Reason:

Since Clark was one of the top four Democratic candidates for president, and Soros has redirected his considerable energy and at least $15 million to effect “regime change” in the United States, their distinction between Kosovo and Iraq arguably looms as the defining foreign policy difference between Democrats and Republicans in 2004. And for those of us who supported Clinton’s Wilsonianism but not Bush’s, these books should help answer two questions we really ought to be asking ourselves: Is our support for America’s activist role dependent on high moral principle, or is it tethered to partisan politics? And did we lower the bar for military intervention?

Seems to me that it’s a matter of trust. Bob Dylan said: “if you’re gonna live outside the law, you better be honest.” Partisan Democrats trust Democratic presidents to engage in technically illegal foreign wars in the service of high moral principles, but not Republican presidents; and vice versa.

Which shows us that the system of international law that made the interventions in Kosovo and Iraq (and the non-intervention in Rwanda) technically illegal needs to change, but how? Certainly, we can’t trust the UN to sanction the removal of despots from power; but who can we trust to authorize and direct the use of American and British military power?

Only the elected representatives in each country, unfortunately.