----- Original Message ----- From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 16:08 Subject: Re: Torture Tactics - Yes, in America was Re: [biofuel] Re: The oil in Iraq
> Greg, > > Sorry if this sounds overtly offensive, but they trespassed? > Yes they did. > > Given a lawful order? Then arrest their shaggy butts. > > They refused? Then arrest their shaggy butts. > > Can't get the "hardware" off? Cut the leg off the desk or > whatever and clear them out. Let the court determine damages and > costs for the professional time consumed removing the hardware. > That is fine too, and eventualy that is what happened I believe. > No. The manner in which this went down was an intentionally > sadistic infliction of pain in order to not secure any peace, but > to make a point and to fill a perverted desire for aggression - a > rather perfectly polished mirror of Shrubs rectal/cranial > inverted mind set of "last resort first, first resort last" - a > mind set that has run amuck. Sadistic, I doubt it. While some police might enjoy that sort of thing few do. They were triing to get them to go under their own power which the protesters could have. By getting the protesters to go under their own power, it would have been less risk to police and to the protesters them selves. I have on the local news the results of a police and peaceful protester conforntation. The police officer was carying the protester off and the protester twisted getting lose and fell, getting a concusion, the police officer had a broaken wrist. The protester claimed police brutality despite the fact that the viedo clearly showed that the fault was the protester. The police officer got the broken wrist while trying to keep the protester from hitting the ground. > > They "clearly asked for it?" I suppose if one of the "peace > officers" had put a gun to a head instead of a swab in an eye as > a form of "persuasion" and it "accidentally" went off, you would > say they were deserving, having "clearly asked for it" as well? Big differance between leathal ( that was not used ) and non-leathal ( that was used ). > (Of course it wasn't lethal until it was lethal.) Such being the > case, why not start equipping all constables with broom and mop > handles, a spare gun (to plant) and let the rule of the day be > "Louima and Rampart - they were all asking for it anyway." > You would love that wouldn't you. > There is really only one thing to be concerned with in your > entire post. That's the callous disdain you express for people > who increasingly find the limits of the "law" to be grossly > lacking, in that rigid adherence to it insures that devastations > will transpire before the issues are redressed, that the prim and > proper process of "legal" redress only promotes escalated decay > if not disappearance of eco-systems (or social systems, or > whatever else), and take personal action in the form of civil > disobedience to draw public attention to such idiocy. > The only distain I have, is for people who don't try other (lawful) forms of redress first, because they are to lazy to fight the system, from inside if nessasary. > Adhering strictly to a legal system where such a result is the > inevitable outcome is indeed a descriptive form of lunacy - > strongly counted upon by all special interests, whether they be > Pacific Lumber, Exxon, local construction companies or right/left > leaning governments - counting on the "straw broom / milk toast" > decency of society in general while they wade through the forests > of social and environmental sanity with their D-8 Caterpillars. > Ah.. so it's ok to infringe on your so called "straw broom / milk toast" decent people? I don't by it, because then anarchy reigns, and all people suffer, for example 9/11. > And that's where Thoreau was exactly on target. To paraphrase... > "If the law is unjust, there is only one place for a just man." > Caving to one's conscience and capitulating to a system simply > because it has been penned in as "legal" is indeed insanity. > And if the man is unjust? There are reasons for the civil process, including that old adage, "Majority rule, minority rights", not the other way around. If the majority vote the law in, then it is the right of the minority to convince the majority that the law needs to be changed, this is guaranteed with the 1st amendment. Everyone has the right to civil processes and changing the law is base of it. If you don't like it change it, plain and simple, not a matter of if you don't like it, screw the guy next to you. > Sure, you're entitled to hold a personal and somewhat > "nationalistic" strict allegiance to an immutably fallible legal > system, no matter that its enactors and end results are all too > often corrupt and destitute of principle, moral and ethical > constitution, enough so as to give inevitable rise to civil > disobedience. Then expect the results of that to make things more difficult for others, not just for your self. Part of the problem is because of people who go the extreme with your civil disobedience, and cause laws to be enacted that come down harder on them and wind up catching a lot of fringe people who have not involved them selves in the matters of breaking the law or civil disobedience. Terrorism is an example of this, it is the extreame of civil disobedience and law breaking. Look at what happened after 9/11, and how people are saying that the law is now to much. > > But in case you've forgotten, this country was, as were many > others, literally founded on civil disobedience. And then, no > different than now, the conservative response was that they > should all be given the noose, for they had "clearly asked for > it." > No, I haven't forgotten, and some our leaders of the time say that the Boston Tea Party was something that did more to hurt the cause in the beginning than to help it, because we were still trying to settle things peacfully, and the result was for the British to say hang them. Could it be that peace is only something that is convenant? Greg H. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
