by Warner Todd Huston
August 21, 2007 02:00 PM EST
Back on July 29th, the New York Times published an article that was ostensibly supposed to be a book review even as the first half of the long piece was an anti-Bush, ant-war-on-terror political rant. The byline was credited to Samantha Powers, who, as the Times somewhat benignly defined her, is a "professor of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard." But, Power is far from a mere lefty Harvard professor because in the past she was a duly paid member of Senator Obama's staff and is still a key foreign policy adviser to this day for his campaign for president. In fact, when Obama's shallow foreign policy experience was attacked in the press recently, she was the one who wrote a long apologia that was sent to media outlets to staunch the bleeding of the Obama campaign. Why the Times did not fully identify her as an interested party in a political campaign and instead painted her as just a "professor" is hard to understand. It's doubtful they'd ever give such cover to a Republican operative.
Regardless of Power’s link to the Obama campaign, her essay and other foreign policy writings are perfect examples of the inefficacy of the kind of foreign policy ideas endemic to the weak-on-defense left.
Full Story
Conservative Bloggers Comments:
I can only smirk when the NY Times gets caught being biased. I have no problem with the fact that they are, I simply am annoyed that there are actually people (some of them at the NY Times) in this country that honestly believe that they are an unbiased news source. Getting into the meat of the article was annoying as usual when I have to listen to a "lefty" as the author called her talk about how it is our own actions that are causing much of our own problems. A terrorist is NOT a criminal, period. When an individual or group of individuals commits an act against another nation(s) for a larger cause or for a larger organization or country, they have crossed the lines into terrorism and are now enemy combatants. Since they aren't in uniform they are not protected by the Geneva Convention and thus we have posh locations such as Club Gitmo in Cuba to house these turds. Treating these terrorists like common criminals could not be further from the right thing to do. If anything, we are too weak in our handling of combatants that are not in uniform. In past conflicts, people like that were labeled spies and taken out back and shot. I long for the good old days in that regard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
First, there is no "war on terror". The "war on terror" is merely a propaganda campaign to scare the American people to give up there constitutional rights.
Second, if you think the NYTimes is left you don't know what left is. The NYTimes is decided Right of Center. When has the NYTime ever come out against open markets and big corporations? When have they ever come out against Bush for that matter? The NYTimes reports the administions actions. Further more, the NYTime stopped any in depth reporting right after the WTC attacks and only started reporting again when the war in Iraq started to get sour. International new orgs didn't stop reporting and the American new orgs couldn't ignore the news anymore.
Finally, the extreme right leaning the Supreme Court found that detainees at Guantanamo Bay fell under the fell under the jurisdiction of Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention is a ratified treaty, carries the power of the Constitution, and is the law of the land. Their either soldiers or criminals (ie. terrorists). The term “Enemy Combatant” doesn't exist in a legal context and is meaningless.
Bloggers Comments:
I am sick and tired of you bumbling fascist republican morons. Too stupid to know what freedom is and always ready to give your rights to a tyrants. You are like cowardly children. And check you facts stupid. Gonna censor me now?
Let's see. Where to even begin? I guess on the censorship question. Am I going to censor you? No, of course not because you have actually said something that the normal person can at least tell what the hell you are talking about. That's all I ask when you post. Please don't take that as any type of validation of the thought process you displayed or agreement with pretty much anything you said, but at least it qualifies as generally coherent thought which is almost a first for you that I have seen. As to your points. The fact that you can even say the NY Times is not liberally biased demonstrates that you have no clue what you are talking about. Hell, there are even NY Times employees that will admit to that. It is a given, known by most (but since you missed it, apparently not all). The rag is so liberal I won't allow a copy of it in my home but that's beside the point. As to the terrorists that I called (not my original term) "enemy combatants". Here is the exact quote from the Geneva Convention about combatants.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Full Geneva Convention:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Since they aren't part of the armed forces of any country, they would have to fall under #2. Since they obviously DON'T comply with the requirements below that in the convention it should be apparent to even the most simpled minded person that terrorists (or whatever you want to call them) DO NOT meet the threshhold of the definition of "Prisoner of War" in the Geneva Convention. While I personally find it a shame that we don't/can't take them out back and simply shoot them after capture, I admire the fact that we took the high road and put them at club Gitmo to at least extract some info from them. They deserve nothing better and anyone who says they do is just simply wrong IMHO. As to your "Bumbling facist republican moron" rant, I think I can suffice it to say that I am very clear on what freedom is. I am a Patriot first and a conservative second. I live my life the same way I just described it having demonstrated my patriotism on the battlefields of Kuwait and Iraq. I am not bitter (as you seem to be) because others don't see the world as I do and am happy to "agree to disagree" in many instance (pretty much all issues with you so far). Discussion when it is productive is stimulating. When it denigrates to name calling which is usually you MO it becomes less enjoyable in my opinion. We won't convert each other but the discussion of non-conversion can be enlightening.
NYTimes liberal? Like I said, you don't know what left is. NYTime is pro government, pro business, and pro open markets. That makes the NYTime dead center right.
Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment on the Geneva Conventions. That's unless you would like to have it out with Justice Kennedy or Justice Scalia. There is no evidence that the people at Guantanamo Bay are terrorists other than good word of the leader and his word is as good as spit. If the administration or the DoD claims that they are soldiers or terrorists make their case in front of a judge. Otherwise you're out of luck. As far as talking out back and shooting them like dogs, that is a war crime. Don't claim to be a liberating force if you not up to the task. Wearing a white hat means doing the right thing even when it's not convenient. Welcome to ethics and justice 101.
Carrying a gun and wearing a uniform doesn't make you a patriot either. Standing up for the constitution and the natural laws of liberty is what makes you a patriot.
NY Times = Liberal. Always has been, probably always will be.
As far as the Supreme Courts decision, as I posted earlier I disagree with it. I suppose it's neither the first or last Supreme Court decision I'll disagree with. Though with the appointment of Roberts I have hopes that it will move in the "right" direction..:)
You are dead wrong on your patriot comment.
Patriot (According to Webster)
: one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests
By definition, someone who loves his or her country and bears arms in it's interests is absolutely a patriot. It doesn't mean you have to bear arms to be a patriot but there you have it..
What you meant by the "Natural Laws of Liberty" I have no idea...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
snip...
While Locke spoke in the language of natural law, the content of this law was by and large protective of natural rights, and it was this language that later liberal thinkers preferred. Thomas Jefferson, echoing Locke, appealed to unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
snip...
You see, you don't understand the American liberty you were sent to fight for.
Well, that was so obvious I don't know how I could have missed it. Let's see if Ic an come with something a little more obscure..:)
Have you been to college yet?
Yes, of course. And while I was there I took as little liberal arts (no pun intended) as possible.
Post a Comment