this is utter crap. you can't even articulate any thoughtful argument this guy's put out there; all you've done is quoted some of his media fluff.

i've read Michael Savage. he's full of it. his "commentaries" are simplistic, and his "solutions" are superficial. what makes anyone think degrees in medicine and biology make him an expert (or even worth listening to) on socio-political issues?

words and phrases like "the voice of reason in dangerous times" are the meat and potatoes of propoganda. they employ primarily, what Salvoj Zizek called, "floating signifiers." these are words that lack a concrete definition and instead point to a general idea, words like "justice," "equality," and "reason." in other words, they can mean different things to the different people using those words. but on the flip side, they have a way of causing people to rally. a speech composed of words that you can fill in to fit your own meanings will be very moving, but anyone paying attention to the content of the speech would realize that little is being said at all.

what makes him so reasonable? can he move from one sentence to the next without stumbling across non-sequitors? 'cause that's the only concrete criterion for reason i can think of. i'm sure Hitler thought exterminating the Jews was reasonable. the trappings of so-called "pure reason" have a way of masking a speaker's own subjectivity, his or her own unspoken fears, assumptions, desires and goals.

fine, let Savage stand as the "voice of reason". thankfully we progressives have folks like Jeff Cohen, Noam Chomsky, and Barbara Ehrenreich who serve as the voices of humanity in a greedy, bellicose culture.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't mike savage a cohort of Alex Jones.

If i am correct then these people are the worst form of psudo media, they spread more fear in the name of truth than the current whitehouse.



Examples are many, it is surely a shame that people take this stuff seriously, i would even say "listen" but i do like to listen to the "voice of reason" and "infowars" it is one of the best insights into the deluded mind we have.

I cant say i listen often as the same old tried stupidity is ranted on about over and over, but what the hell, If it makes me laugh, why shouldn't i listen.

But for pity sake, take this moronic verbal as it comes.

Could i suggest David Icke, and his theories on the British royalty and other "Illuminati" being "reptillian aliens" he too has sold many "best sellers" with this and other theories.

If you believe only in what you are told, then you believe in nothing of importance.

Marcus,

Pretty much. Basically, there are certain ways we define something, such as treason. treason, in and of itself, is inherently wrong, as we define it. However, were the people who tried to assainate hitler during WWII wrong? Not in MY opinion, I happen to think that it was a tradgedy that they failed, however, they were still guilty of treason which by definition is wrong. That's what I'm trying to say in a nutshell, my feelings on the action being commited have no bearing on the larger issue of if it was or is right or wrong. I'm probably not being very clear, I get accused of that from time to time, but I am really enjoying this conversation. Glad to know I'm not the only gamer out there that's interested in politics and philosophy. hope everyone is having a great monday.

for the record, i made a typo. it should have been floating signfiers.

edit: nevermind, that wasn't my typo.

anyway, Zizek is a very interesting theorist to me. he also describes "empty signifiers," words and symobls that exist in order to be filled with meaning. the cross is such an example. "a word that can be used to define anything else" is another good definition of empty signifiers. for example, anything can be defined in relation to God, since God created everything (in a theistic discursive model, anyway).

i'd say "the nation" is another floating signifier we see being used a lot right now. whole sets of ethical values are being defined in relation to the nation - as patriotic or unpatriotic. apperantly, drug use is now anti-American. and treason is another one of those words subsidiary to the nation.

what is treason? treason is a category of crime ruling bodies invent as a catchall means to eliminate anyone they don't want around. making up a name for it makes it sound more legitimate (legitimacy of the ruling power was at the very core of the revival of democracy and the creation of the Magna Carta). just look at how vague the definition is in the U.S. consititution.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

it's nonsensical to accuse a foregin power of treason for making war with us, so that first line is about revolution. any political revolution is treason here. the second line, "adhering to their Enemies...," basically says that if you agree with someone big brother disagrees with, or if you even make things a little easier for them, you've committed treason.

anyone else see a dysjuncture with democratic idealism here? i'm not even trying to argue whether it's for better or worse, but simply point out that it's not like we've perfected democracy or anything.

I don't see this. Treason is a word that describes an action. It is not wrong any more than saying that jumping is wrong. Of course you could be jumping on somones head, but then, who's head is it and why? that is another issue.

Edit; on further thought, could you say the word 'assault' has similar characteristics as treason? Assault is always wrong unless proven otherwise in which case it is no longer called assault but probably self defence. So if somone is treasonous but proven to have just cause what is it called?

It was the fact that later on you used phrases like "I'm all for it" and "I think" even though earlier on you said that your personal beliefs didnt make the situation right or wrong.

And, yes, it is very interesting. But, we could go into a discussion of personal morals which would not be a good discussion.



These forums are a pretty active place, plus we seem to have a lot of 'thinkers' here.

Just a guess, but i think they might be called "revolutionaries". Does that sound right? Of course that would only work if they won, if they lost they would still be called traitors i think. didn't someone say once that the victor writes the history books?

Ah yes, very nice answer!

One thing though, our legal system will determine if assault is assault or self defence, but that is no guarrantee of justice. The same with treason, whatever the outcome, people have to make a moral choice to what the real justice of the situation is.

History is written by the victors.

A good example are the Rosenbergs, convicted falsely of treason and electrocuted shortly after just because the public was caught up in the "Red Scare".

That should be a good reminder to us all to be very careful where we are going in dealing with suspected terrorists.

The ironic part of that tail is that just a bit later they found an actual spy and all they did was put them in prison and then send him back to the USSR.

oh, perhaps they did learn somthing afterall then!!

I'm probably what passes for a US leftist these days, but I have to point out that a lot of this stinking Cold War trash is both truth and lies on both sides. IIRC, evidence from Soviet archives indicates that Julius Rosenberg was as least a minor resource, but most likely neither Julius nor Ethel passed info that hurt people seriously, much less merited their executions.

Actual the Soviet Union didnt even know who the Rosenbergs were, but that Era is pretty confusing anyways. So glad it didnt really show up on the AP test this friday.

Like i thought the Iraqi's have right anymore.
What a joke, Us and UK security forces (non military) can kill them on sight, all they have to do is perceive a threat..)

Treason means not dying in one shot. maybe squirting and coughing up blood on the road.

Maybe even identifying the men who shot you at random for driving too close to be in range of their patrols?

Marcus

The rosenbergs. home grown traitors are the hardest to find.
but how hard should we look,

1. the offence of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Given the right situation and resources I would commit any of these 3. However, I have no real loyalty to the "UK" as an entity, and only recognise it due to necessity. I reject the "British" Royal family, and especially despise the title of "prince of Wales". I don't hold any dislike for the Windsor's and Wales as individuals, but I do for the institution when it claims any Lordship over me, my nation and countrymen.

So the question is, am I a traitor and treasonous person, or am I a patriot?
Depends on which side of the fence you sit on I guess.

I believe the police in our own countries can shoot us citizens under exactly the same rules of engagement? and they don't always get it right either, but because it is not happenning in Iraq, no one cares... well aside from the occasional race riot!

As said before by GW I thin, treason is a hard idea to grasp when the nations sovereign are the people.



But they werent traitors though, they were killed just because of the Red Scare and the unstable policies at that time.

Actually, we can't, sorry. It kinda depends where in teh US you are. Some areas a a little more tolerant of Use of Force Situations than others. But I can say with absolute certiantly that I cannot use lethal force if I percieve a potential threat. Take for example, the Sean Bell Killing in NYC. The Officers said they perceived a threat, but it turned out the men they shot at were unarmed. Just because there is a precieved threat doesn't mean there is an actual threat and people all over the nation get very very angry when police shoot unarmed citizens. People do care Mystik; Sean Bell, Jessie Sollman, Ama Du Dialo (sorry I butchered the spelling) just to name a few. Incidents like that make people very angry.

I can use force, however, if I perceive a threat, but It must be appropriate and proportional to the threat. If you are an angry citizen and are getting in my face, will I perceive a potential threat? Of course. You might try to hit me. Does that give me justification to kill you? No.

You also need to take into account the tools available to the police too. My department has tasers. If you are running at me with a knife or sword, do I have justification to use deadly force? Perhaps. Will I? No. I can taser you. Am I kept safe? Yes. Are you still Alive? Yes. That's the important thing.

On the side note, some one from the UK please confirm this, but I heard that your police don't normally carry guns on routine patrols (duties, etc). Is that true? Here in the US, all police carry atleast one firearm on duty, and most carry one while they are off duty too.

No, only armed response have guns. And they are called out only in serious situations.
Our police have nightstick type things, and CS spray. Though there is a debate on the posibility of given our guys Tazers

Exactly what i'm saying is the same as it is in Iraq

that's what we call OIC. Opportunity, Intent, Capability. All three have to be present to justify use of force.



I tend to believe that the rules of engagement are a little more strict than just a percieved threat. Those soldiers over there in Iraq have to follow their OIC also, they can't just kill everyone on sight. You have to take what the media says with a grain of salt. They are after ratings after all. While there have been isolated incidents of innocents being killed,(very isolated, like maybe 30 in 4 years of warfare) it's not an everyday occurance. Actually, when you think about it, it actually speaks pretty well for the troops that are over there that it hasn't occured more often.

Mystikmind, I'm merely commenting on the ability of US police to use Force from your earlier comment (#68). In the US, I really can't use the perception of a threat as justification for Deadly Use of Force. Unless it is very weird circimstances, I need an actual and immediate threat (Ie. an offender pulling out a firearm and aiming it at someone).

If I percieve that an individual is going to kill me, am I justified in killing him? No. There may not have been an actual threat; he may have been unarmed. And remember, appropriate and proprtional. If a man is trying to hit me and grab for my gun, can I kill him? Possibly. Would that be over kill? Yes. Would people be very angry that I shot an unarmed man? Yes. Were there better and more appropriate actions to take if a situtation like that were to happen? Yes. I could OC (the spray), taser, or smack him with my ASP (the baton).

Police are held to a stricter standard as they are charged with keeping citizens protected and safe, even the bad citizens. Soldiers fight the enemies of the state. They have different roles and have different rules.

I hope that clarifies the difference. I'm just trying to point out that police and military operate under very different rules of engagement and in a lot of cases, the military probably has more discretion in their use of force than the average police officer.

ps. Thanks for the info, dragoon. That's really different than here in The US. I guess its calmer in the UK, or atleast I hope it is, lol.

I can understand that soldiers would not be held as accountable as police... since police have far superior training in dealing with people.

However, even though police and soldiers have very different training,, Soldiers in Iraq still need to follow the same basic fundamental rules of engagement as police do.