You know, the fact that she’d single you and the Huffington Post out for attack has to mean something. I mean, I’d be quite honored if the Daily Kos ran something like, “And those rightwing fascists Instapundit and the Marmot’s Hole…”

September 11, 2007 @ 10:46 pm | Comment

Marmot, it’s been a long time! You raise a good point – she puts me in excellent company. I’m truly flattered.

September 11, 2007 @ 11:00 pm | Comment

Don’t pat your self on the back too quickly. Huffington Post defending the indefensible …

See
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/how-rightwing-lie-about-_b_63888.html
and
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/betray

Random example but typical

Take a bow Richard

September 11, 2007 @ 11:38 pm | Comment

Are you going to paint all of Huffington Post, which is a pretty diverse place, with one broad brush because of one post that rubbed you the wrong way? That’s a vintage Malkin tactic.

Good to see you resurfacing, Jack – I see this topic is bringing all my old friends together!

September 12, 2007 @ 12:05 am | Comment

Congratulations, Richard! What an honor! Kind of like being on Nixon’s Enemies list.

Tangentially related, “Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.”

September 12, 2007 @ 1:41 am | Comment

Jack, you lurk here always and only rear your head when I write about Malkin – why is that? (I don’t mind, serioiusly, but wonder why she always brings you out of the woodwork.)

For the record, I used the term “General Betray-us” days before the Move-on ad appeared. And yet i do think Move-on, a very misunderstood and foolishly maligned organization, fucked up badly with its full page ad in the NY Times. i am a microscopic blog venting my personal opinions, all of them false and misguided and admittedly stupid. Move-on left itself idiotically vulnerable and open to all sorts of accusations, removing the focus off of the general’s betrayal and shifting it to “unhinged liberals.” What a gift! Stupid, stupid, stupid. The only ones who can defeat the democrats are the democrats, as they say. Stupid and tasteless and strategically bizarre.

Anyway, about the, “Well, how would YOU get us out of Iraq” question, that’s one of the wingnut favorites. let bull loose in a CHina shop and then look at the ruins and insist those who complain, who point out the insanity of letting the bull in, THEY have to come up with the solution. Bad news, everyone: there are only shitty solutions, one worst than the next. Our sole hope is to choose the one that’s least cataclysmic. Maybe a phased withdrawal starting yesterday. intensive acceleration of the police and military training, a copy of the writings of the Founding Fathers and then we’re out of there. There is nothing we can do there anymore; the threat of an ensuing bloodbath is absurd, as threr is a bloodbath there right now, temporarily restrained in areas where we flood in the troops, but making up for it by worsening elsewhere. As the Poor Man blog once wrote, “And no, I don’t know how to unshit the bed. But I do know who shit the bed.” That just about sums it up.

September 12, 2007 @ 9:47 am | Comment

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070911/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/china_tainted_products

China to the US: We’ll try to stop sending you lead toys.

China to Chinese people and the rest of the world:
Let them eat lead!

nanheyangrouchuan

September 12, 2007 @ 2:27 am | Comment

Malkin, Hannity, Levine et all are interesting because they all rightly decry the problems of socialism and statism when used domestically but for some reason can’t see the war as clusterf*ck of typical central planning.

The logic free zone of neo-conservative movement is not very different than the American left. I don’t think Clinton even nodded at Congress when he sent our troops all over hell and back.

September 12, 2007 @ 3:41 am | Comment

Mr Sideburns, can you explain why the MoveOn ad is indefensible. Did you not read any of the links that accompany the ad? By the way, I followed your dictionary link:

2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.

Juggling the numbers of the dead like an Enron accountant to make black look like white sounds a lot like a betrayal of trust to me.

September 12, 2007 @ 3:59 am | Comment

Interestingly, Clinton’s use of American armed forces did not result in the deaths of nearly 4000 troops and the maimings of tens of thousands more.

September 12, 2007 @ 4:34 am | Comment

Richard – Been here all along – just lurking.

I agree cherry picking comments is a pretty low tactic, which is freely practised on both sides, but what I cited was an article which I feel is different. It is an example of the mind set of HF and by publishing it without a disclaimer (as you are wont to do with articles that you disagree with) shows at least tacit agreement.

The main post argues that General Petraeus “The word ‘betray’ used by MoveOn in the ad implies many meanings, but does not directly imply ‘traitor’ — unless that definition is introduced.” What are common meanings of “betray”? My point in citing dictionary.com stands. Interestingly below the article a number of commentators also note that as a minimum the advert was at least in poor judgement and broadly back fired.

Cat, I am unclear if your main charge is that he is using numbers – what else do make a judgment on ? – Or that he is juggling them. To accuse General Petraeus even by the second meaning “to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling” a duty – is pretty rank and in accusing any one of the same let alone a serving officer “indefensible” unless you can and do give evidence that that he has massaged the numbers. And all the more bizarre to do it before the guy gave his report. A better argument on your part would be to show the numbers are wrong, or use the numbers to argue against his position which is that militarily the “surge” has had limited success.

Malkin/ neo con bashing is a sub set of Bush derangement syndrome is a fun pastime but hardly productive, and does not drive the debate forward or propose solutions. As I have said before Richard your use of charged epithets and adjectives (Our Lady of the Concentration Camps, sanctimonious, vile etc) while arguing against Malkin, and complaining about her use language doesn’t help and is hypocritical.

I ask this esteem panel from where we are now what would you propose we do, withdraw or stay? Hint – do not use charged language, argue based on published figures, and avoid the use irrelevant historical analogies. Extra marks will be given for predicting the consequences for the Middle East in 5 or 10 years. Don’t write on both sides of the page at the same time.

September 12, 2007 @ 7:50 am | Comment

Jack, Here is a portion of the evidence MoveOn gave to back up its statement:

http://tinyurl.com/3yom4o
http://tinyurl.com/35aesq
http://tinyurl.com/2jhsvd
http://tinyurl.com/2oknpw
http://tinyurl.com/36loog
http://tinyurl.com/35aesq
http://tinyurl.com/3xfjdc

September 12, 2007 @ 8:46 am | Comment

“Bush Derangement Syndrome” – to paraphrase, if you aren’t angry at what the Bush administration has done to this country, you are either not paying attention or an authoritarian.

Iraq is a tar baby – the range of options ranges from bad to worse. I think a gradual draw-down is probably the on the “bad” end of the scale (as opposed to “worse”). I don’t know if anyone saw the extensive poll of Iraqi peoples’ opinions about the occupation and their future that was just released – it’s very interesting. Clear majorities favor a withdrawal of American troops, but the differences in opinions between Shi’a, Sunni and Kurd on many issues are huge.

It’s going to be bloody if we stay, bloody if we go. I think Edward Litwack (sp?) recommended that American troops leave and let the civil war that is happening in slow motion erupt all the way in the hopes it will burn itself out. Helluva thing to hope for, but I don’t know what better options remain.

Either way we are risking a failed state that will be a guaranteed source of instability and further terrorism.

The winner so far? Iran.

Heckuva job, Dubya!

September 12, 2007 @ 9:37 am | Comment

And about Our Lady of the Concentration Camps – guess what Michelle defends in her infamous and evil tome, In Defense of Internment? Do you know what she defends, Jack? Two words, and they both start with “c.”

September 12, 2007 @ 9:50 am | Comment

“I don’t know how to unshit the bed….”

Now that quote was worth dropping by for.

September 12, 2007 @ 10:09 am | Comment

I lurk and rarely post as I am hesitant to add fuel to the flames. It is coincidental that I usually appear to defend Malkin, but given the one way traffic understandable. Yes she did write a book about detention camps we have previously discussed this � you can have a legitimated difference of opinion � but I say again if a neo con used this sort language to describe for instance Arianna Huffington you would be quick to denounce them.

Cat, so you say that he is juggling the numbers, and cite links to both GOA and NIE reports, via MoveOn. Both note that the violence has been reduced, and like Amb. Crocker and Gen. Petraeus that more needs to be done on the political front. Are the GOA and NIE juggling the numbers as well?

September 12, 2007 @ 10:18 am | Comment

Jack, I got my doctorate degree many years ago, have lost count of the postgraduate students I’ve taught, and frankly don’t give a flying f— about earning any of the “extra marks” you offer.

September 12, 2007 @ 10:32 am | Comment

Ivan, sigh, perhaps you have taught too long and fail to recognize a little humour

September 12, 2007 @ 10:36 am | Comment

Whenever you flood troops into an area there will be reduced violence, at least in the short term. This was not a benchmark for success. Violence dropped in Anbar, then flared in Baghdad. Whack-a-mole continues.

There’s a marvelous comment thread over here on the Malkin article. I strongly recommend it for everyone, Jack above all.

Jack, I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say I’d react differently if it were Arianna Huffington – has she advocated interning entire races? If so,I would react the same as I react to Malkin. Where are you coming from, and where is your example of the “hypocrisy” you cite? For now, it’s just hot air.

September 12, 2007 @ 10:40 am | Comment

Richard yes a good thread – I liked the comment “Malkin has become the Yankee Tariq Assiz, without the charm”, irony I think was not intended. Reading the whole reinforces my earlier comment that such bashing is a subset of Bush DS. With Lisa I disagree as Bush DS started before the war and was originally caused by the acrimonious second term election. It is exacerbated by rise of the bloggosphere where partisan positions are easier to take and publicise. I believe Bush DS is characterized by an un thinking, visceral criticism of anything Bush says; I suspect that if Bush announced a cure for cancer the left would still pile in.

Lisa I agree that the major winner has been Iran but to have predicted this before the war would mean that you had 20/20 foresight of the oil price whose rise has enabled Iran to stand tall, something that even the commodity markets did not achieve.

I believe the major loser has been the UN, which on Iraq since withdrawing has done nothing and still can not hold Iran to account. This body so beloved of the left has fallen over completely on a range of issues Palestine, Dafur, through to Iraq and now Iran.

Richard, and all, I agree that any of the current alternatives are unappetizing, but when lambasting the existing strategy it is incumbent on you to propose an viable alternative rather than throwing you hand in the air and saying “Well I would not start from here…”. I, and the current Iraqi government believe that an accelerated withdrawal leaving behind a copy of the Federalist Papers is insufficient.

Richard I call hypocrisy as I feel that if the epithets and adjectives (“compulsive liar and human-body-hating freak…. prudishly….neurotically”) were used about others as you use them about Malkin there would a quick resort to cries of foul ball.

September 12, 2007 @ 11:27 am | Comment

Exactly, with 30000 more troops in a few areas, the violence is bound to reduce. But the violence will return once the troops leave. If it is called a success, US will be in a mess in Iraq for a long time.

It was a mistake to invade Iraq. But the US has sacrificed enough and it is time to leave. If the Iraqis want to flight, let them flight.

September 12, 2007 @ 11:39 am | Comment

Richard I call hypocrisy as I feel that if the epithets and adjectives (�compulsive liar and human-body-hating freak�. rudishly�.neurotically�) were used about others as you use them about Malkin there would a quick resort to cries of foul ball.

Jack, thank God the right never attacks liberals with phrases like “unhinged,” “traitors,” and literally hundreds of other epithets. Over there on the right, it’s all love and kisses all the time. Just hop on over to LGF’s comments and see for yourself.

Funny, that the thread you point to as an example of Bush Derangement Syndrome is on the blog of a professor who is a Republican, a member of Pajamas Media and a former strong supporter of the war in Iraq. So BDS runs very deep, and has polluted the minds of many Repubs now, from Brent Scowcroft and George Will to countless others. Do you believe this simply arose in a vacuum? It took years and years to cultivate, to turn civilized, bright, often conservative people into true haters of Bush. The reasons for this slow but inevitable evolution is right here in front of you, from Mission Accomplished to shifting reasons for the invasion of Iraq to permanent terrorism hysteria to a staggering disregard for the truth and for civil liberties, and… Well, you’re smart; you know all this. Do you care about habeas corpus? Do you care about separating ourselves from terrorists by refusing to commit torture? Do you not see that these are specific, tangible reasons for people to hate bush, without a tiny shred of derangement, just sheer documentable evidence?

As I’ve told you before, if you want to defend Michelle Malkin you are very much in the wrong place. I’ll give you the floor, but you only demonstrate your wild-eyed unwillingness to hold bush to account for the mess he has made of our country and of the world.

Richard, and all, I agree that any of the current alternatives are unappetizing, but when lambasting the existing strategy it is incumbent on you to propose an viable alternative rather than throwing you hand in the air and saying �Well I would not start from here��.

I gave you the most specific viable alternative I could:

Our sole hope is to choose the one that’s least cataclysmic. Maybe a phased withdrawal starting yesterday. intensive acceleration of the police and military training, a copy of the writings of the Founding Fathers and then we’re out of there. There is nothing we can do there anymore; the threat of an ensuing bloodbath is absurd, as there is a bloodbath there right now…

There you are: a phased withdrawal starting ASAP. Give them the tools, leave advisers there for a while to continue training their army and police and then get out because it’s their country and we cannot stay forever. And that’s just what we’re going to do eventually, a phased withdrawal. Bush just wants to wait until he is out of office so he can’t be blamed for the decision to “cut and run.” Then people like you and Michelle and Norman Podhoretz can lay all the blame at the feet of “liberals,” even though we were doomed by the specific bunglings and idiocies of the Bush administration, from the Heritage Foundation staffers they installed in major positions in Iraq, fresh out of school with no previous experience, to the insane disbanding of the army and the provision of laughably too few troops to maintain law and order. But blame the liberals. It’s easy and it feels good. Fine. But you’re only fooling yourself.

September 12, 2007 @ 1:18 pm | Comment

As I commented above on the thread I quoted “irony I think was not intended”. I agree that much of the right and left blogosphere are like a gutter full of pre used epithets and bloodied adjectives but my accusation was that you unfairly use them, that LGF or HF uses them is not a defence. In the gutter at least some of us are looking at the stars. Reading as I often do your blog I find that you using them particularly about Malakin both rather unattractive and beneath your usual high level of debate.

Yes I care about civil liberties and habeas corpus these are hard fought for rights and should be cherished but their application can not be the same in 1215 as in 2007. Is it right that the period of detention without legal representation should be the same in the era of the computer as that of the quill pen? Rights will change and this change should be vigorously debated, but not by the left where any change is met by the frothing chants of Bush DS.

I always grateful accept the floor you offer and hope not to abuse it by presenting an alternative narrative. I too hold Bush to account for a number of failures but to load them entirely at his feet is unfair when the the UN and a number of other countries are largely to blame. For instance personally I don’t like Gitmo and the unwarranted detention there – but what are the alternatives? You know that few other countries (notably the UK and Oz) will safely accept their own nationals charged with some serious crimes. Would you close the place down and repatriate those Chinese nationals? What has the UN done on this international problem?

Yes you presented your alternative (rapid draw down, accelerate training, Founding fathers writing etc.) – I agree that something of the sort is more or less inevitable not least because of the excessive wear on the ground war machine. But how are you proposing to accelerate training while simultaneously drawing down troops? I would have hoped that by now the UN would at least be doing some training, but nary a squeak not even organising such training out side Iraq. If the UN and, by implication, the other major nations China, France etc. can’t or wont do the heavy lifting I fear it is up to the US to do it, and hence must remain for some time. Unpalatable though this may be.

If you truly believe that Bush and all are just hanging on to maliciously to hand over a poisoned chalice to the incoming Democrats your unbounded cynicism is of outsized proportions and it really doesn’t become you.

September 12, 2007 @ 2:28 pm | Comment

“Ivan, sigh, perhaps you have taught too long and fail to recognize a little humour”

What you wrote wasn’t funny, even though I knew you intended it to be. My point is that you’re a typical callow arrested adolescent puerile blowhard who assumes altogether too much about himself and his intended audience, having lived in a bubble as you and your kind do…in contrast to those who, for example, might have the integrity actually to enlist to fight in Iraq.

Thus, when you posit the multilayered logical fallacy, “what are the alternatives”, it’s first incumbent on YOU to make some personal sacrifices to “support” a plan which, to you, is a mere faraway abstraction.

Chickenhawk college boys deserve to be deported to Basra, without any weapons or other support, and with their US passports cancelled.

September 12, 2007 @ 2:56 pm | Comment

Must be brief:

Always happy to give you the floor and you don’;t abuse it and I appreciate contrary narratives, but will argue them when I’m passionate about it.

You can’t blame the UN one iota for the mess in Iraq. It’s not always my favorite organization, but it’s another of Malkin’s constant targets. I remember when some UN peacekeepers somewhere were arrested for raping a local girl, and Malkin seized on it to paint the UN with her typically broad brush as an evil institution. Of course, when some US soldier commits an equally reprehensible act in Haditha, her first course is always to blame the Associated Press or NY Times for fabricating the story – they are, in Malkinland, always presumed innocent and those who say otherwise are spitting on our troops. Of course, the UN peacekeepers are guilty as charged.

Alternative to Gitmo: the justice system.

Unbounded cynicism when it comes to the Bush administration is called for. Maybe you forget about those who cherish our troops so much embracing the Swift Boat Veterans and labelling double-amputee Cleland a coward. Maybe you forget about… No, I’m not going to chronicle all the reasons why we should be boundlessly cynical about Bush. You only need to read the papers. Watch clips of Gonzales’ testimony to Congress. Do your research into Rove’s whisper campaigns. Look at all Bush has given the wealthy and taken from those in need. Look at Iraq, every single aspect of it. Look at Darth Cheney, accountable to no one. Okay, well I did list a few. But you should know all this. How can one not be boundlessly cynical of Bush? You should know I am not the kind to jump to conclusions and consider what I write here carefully (even if it’s always wrong). This loathing of the Worst President Ever was a gradual process. He earned it. He worked for it. Again, it is based on Bush’s record and not on any derangement. Luckily most of America now agrees with me. It took them a while to come around. When are you going to see the light?

September 12, 2007 @ 2:58 pm | Comment

Ivan I think it safe to assume you teach neither logic nor courtesy.

September 12, 2007 @ 3:10 pm | Comment

Jack, Chickenhawks deserve no courtesy. They don’t even deserve to live.

September 12, 2007 @ 3:17 pm | Comment

Jack Sideburns,

1. You wouldn’t hesitate to criticise Richard for his use of emotionally charged language when he talked about Michelle Malkin and other neo-con apologists. Well, I have no problem with that. But I’m just wondering whether you have extended the same “fair and balanced” appeal to Michelle Malkin and ask her to curb her excessive rhetoric. If you haven’t, is it because you are in agreement with her? – this is just a thought from an Aussie who doesn’t quite care about US politics.

2. What I care about, however, is the lie you continue to tell about Gitmo. It amazes me to read how neo-con apologists like you will have the gut to whitewash atrocious acts of human right abuse by claiming that Gitmo is set up for the protection of detainees. If Gitmo is really for the protection of the detainees, why would it take your government 5 years to release Mamdouh Habib, an innocent Australian of Egyptian descendence, from Guantanamo? If Habib’s case was process through the normal judicial system, he would have been released in less that a few days. Is it really necessary to detain David Hick for 7 years before repatriation? After all, as you have correctly pointed out, Australian is one of the countries which will not hesitate to accept the repatriation of nationals who have committed serious crime overseas. If this is the way that Australians are treated at Guantanamo, I hate to imagine what would happen to other suspects from the Middle East, Pakistan or China.

Don’t you think that the US government owes the Australian public an explanation for what happened to our fellow countrymen?

September 12, 2007 @ 4:08 pm | Comment

Fat Cat, as above, I agree that many sites on both sides of the divide use inflammatory language and that includes Malkin’s. I don’t, contrary to your expectations, wholly agree with her or other neo cons positions. My point to Richard is that it is hypocritical of him to use such language only about Malkin and in a way which if the neo con bloggers used about writers of the left he would immediately condemn. Knowing Richard a little I, perhaps unfairly, I hold him to a higher standard.

As a fellow Australian I agree that the treatment of David Hicks was despicable, as a fellow human I suggest that the treatment of all the detainees was below the standard we should expect. That it took Howard’s government 6 years and change from Blair to Brown in the UK before these arrangements were made is hardly Bush’s fault. At present there is no international mechanism to equitably try these trans national terrorist and so by default the US is left holding the can. I agree with you, as I too worry, as to what “would happen to other suspects from the Middle East, Pakistan or China” if they were sent back to their respective countries.

September 12, 2007 @ 5:42 pm | Comment

I rarely use this sort of language. I admit that. I used to use this type of language when i wrote about the CCP and don’t any longer because it isn’t fair; there is more than one “CCP” (just as there’s more than one “US government”).

With Michelle Malkin, my use of this language is intentional; it is a conscious choice. I see her as the most dangerous force in the media, far more malignant than Ann Coulter, rivaled only perhaps by Bill O’Reilly. There is no hypocrisy here. If someone went after one of the bloggers I admired on the left and proved that he or she was in favor of interning entire races of people, trust me, I would no longer admire that blogger and would excuse the epithet. Malkin is a monster, a fiend. At the risk of invoking the Godwin’s Law idiots (who totally misunderstand what Godwin’s Law is), many of her very specific characteristics can be specifically compared to those of Joseph Goebbels and Julius Streicher – and I am not mouthing off; I have studied these men for many, many years and know them well. I can back up these claims with specific evidence. When I get the energy, maybe I will put up an entire post charting the similarities. Like their tactic of pointing to one criminal to tar an entire race, something Malkin and her ilk (Debbie Schussel and Pamela of Atlas Shrugs come instantly to mind) do on a regular basis. This is not theory or hysterical finger-pointing, it is documentable and verifiable. Dave Neiwert of the blog Orcinus (on my blogroll; use a proxy) has done more than anyone else in documenting Malkin’s fascistic nature. Now, I am aware that “fascistic” is a much overused word and too often thrown around by both sides so I almost never invoke it. But Malkin truly deserves this descriptor. She truly believes in brute force and bullying as acceptable, and even admires these “qualities.” This, too, is documented and not a matter of conjecture or theory. She loves machismo, the image of GI Joe with a cigarette dangling from his mouth; it excites her – and this, too, is documentable. I can provide links to back it up. I don’t use language like this (Malkin-Belsen, Malkinwald) frivolously. She truly is a threat to mankind and an eerie throwback to a more brutal, uglier era. A freak of nature and a menace. Meanwhile, she calls me a leftist (which I am not) and says to me, specifically, and I quote, “Screw You!” Lovely. I can document why I call her these things. She is the one shrieking epithets. I am simply calling her what she is.

September 12, 2007 @ 7:10 pm | Comment

“And now for something completely different”:

According to this week’s “Onion”, Bill O’Reilly now advocates coddling the terrorists:

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/maybe_we_should_try_coddling

September 12, 2007 @ 7:43 pm | Comment

I don’t know why but Filipino “conservatives” are the biggest whores around.

That “hail (or should I say heil) white master” mentality really gets twisted once you put them in America.

September 12, 2007 @ 9:29 pm | Comment

Richard,

You can tell a lot about a man by who his friends are. You can tell more by who his enemys are. If Malkin doesn’t like you, you must be doing something right. Congrats man.

September 12, 2007 @ 10:16 pm | Comment

And those rightwing fascists Instapundit and the Marmot’s Hole…”

Posted by: The Marmot at September 11, 2007 10:46 PM

Rightwing fascist??? Awwww… you’ve mellowed with age and I’d never class you with the InstaParrot.

I mean, when’s the last time you declared Kim burning North Korea to the ground based on satellite photos of springtime ag field clearance fires?

September 13, 2007 @ 6:04 pm | Comment

and cat,

I know I’m deadending this thread but here ya go.

From one of the Atriots, Steve J smushed up Kevin Drum and Andrew Sullivan and provides a nice graph ala Perot, that easily shows the problems with the numbers of civilian deaths the Pentagon has been reporting and revising.

How do you revise away a million civilian deaths per month?

September 13, 2007 @ 6:14 pm | Comment

oops. a million should be a thousand. *hangs head in shame*

September 13, 2007 @ 6:16 pm | Comment

Terrific indictment of the state of the US Union :
“The President has been allowed to spy on Americans without a warrant, and our U.S. Senate is letting it continue. You know something is wrong when the New England Patriots face stiffer penalties for spying on innocent Americans than Dick Cheney and George Bush.”

September 15, 2007 @ 9:50 am | Comment

It amazes me to read how neo-con apologists like you will have the gut to whitewash atrocious acts of human right abuse by claiming that Gitmo is set up for the protection of detainees.

As someone who served as part of JTF-160 and JTF-GTMO, I have to ask…

What were the “atrocious” acts of human rights abuse?

September 18, 2007 @ 6:31 am | Comment

Maydayog asked, “What were the “atrocious” acts of human rights abuse?”

Read my last comment again. I’m referring to the extended period of extrajudicial detention of captives without trial. I don’t know about you. But I live in a country where the majority of people would consider this kind of detention as unlawful and as serious violation of human rights.

September 19, 2007 @ 6:33 pm | Comment