Turning 30 in Guantanamo -- Unsubscribe from the War on Terror
Binyam Mohamed - an Ethiopian national, and a former resident of the United Kingdom – has been detained at Guantánamo Bay since September 2004.Link (Thanks, Damien!)Amnesty International is seriously concerned for Binyam Mohamed’s health and well-being, particularly following the US government's announcement that it has charged him for trial by military commission. His mental and physical health are reported to be precarious after years of indefinite detention, and alleged torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in Pakistan, Morocco, Afghanistan and Guantánamo.To raise awareness of his plight we are asking people to visit the Unsubscribe action page and Digg it.
On 24 July 2008 Binyam Mohamed is 30 years old. To mark this day, the London Guantánamo Campaign are holding a demonstration to call on the UK government to do more to secure Binyam’s release from Guantánamo Bay and return to the UK.
the latest
latest episodes
Probably should mention this:
"According to the complaint, Binyam Mohamed was planning terror attacks against high-rise apartment buildings in the United States and was arrested at an airport in Pakistan, attempting to go to London while using a forged passport."
H's gttng mr d prcss thn jst bt nywhr ls. H's tng bttr thn h hs n hs lf. 30 yrs g r s h wldn't hv lvd ths lng. H shld prbbly b thnkfl h's gt ths mch chnc t lv. Trrr ctvts d hv cnsqncs.
f h's bn trtrd (nd tht's bg "F" t Gtm) thn th trtrrs shld b brght t jstc. Tht ds nt hwvr ct s Kng's X t lt mrdrng jhd frk t. Prspctv ppl.... Chck yr Bsh Drngd slm-fscst ppsng sntmnts pls.
Geez I thought Courts capable of depriving life & liberty by Law in the USA must be set up by Constitutional Amendment, like all the other Courts of Law....
Torture is wrong. America must have a higher standard than its enemies. However I never hear about people who mean us harm on Boing Boing. Only the abuses of our country are mentioned. Apparently no one in Guantanamo is a terrorist? No one actually deserves to be captured, imprsioned and interrogated? Only America has transgressed the rights and liberties of others? Our crimes or supposed crimes are obsessed about and our enemies mean nothing.
Dana Law
San Diego, Ca
Why should this guy come to the UK? According to the text on this site he's an Ethiopian who lived in the UK once. It's Ethiopias problem IMO.
This link suggests that he was subjected to some horrid treatment-whatever hes supposed to have been planning:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/11/politics.alqaida
Sounds like torture to me...
Bah. You've got guys held there who are the enemies of the Gov of China, not USA, who never had nothing against the USA nor did they take any steps at all against the USA (Uighurs) ...or at least they did not and had no cause for such until imprisoned by the USA for ...what? These civilians, transported from Afghanistan over state boundaries by US Armed Forces....contrary to The Geneva Conventions....for being a threat to the Chinese Gov?...
Does "Freedom of Association" mean as much as the "Freedom from Search" does in the USA today? It seems that many of those held in Gitmo are there precisely because of whom they associated with rather than for any overt act (at least in the case of Khadr, no act until US Forces had started shooting at him and his family).
I'm with Lord Goldsmith etc. on this one...
The problem here is that some "bright boys" wanted to use new techniques without first providing the legal means to use such, and as ALL the GOV DOES by definition must be done within the Laws,( or else being illegal, whatever else it may be called it cannot be stated to be "Government Action")they immediately had a problem, which has grown with time...
So now comes a flurry of "laws" purporting to "legalize" all this action that was illegal ....no, afraid that won't work, it looks scummy and unjust...
What this Administration has done is Criminal....according to laws which were already on the Books...in contrast to the "Charges" or whatever they are called that they are forcing the people at Gitmo to "defend" and sit through..."Tribunals" they are called...(sarcasm: they wear masks, too? Or is that only to protect the Gov's Interrogators?)...novel "crimes"...while old ones go unpunished...
Oh well I'm sure that the US Congress feels it can "Bless" any murders, etc. performed by their fellow "public servants" and make it all "better"....
And the invasion of Iraq was a"terror activity" ,no?
Only seven years until a hearing...what due process! Troy the international comparative legal expert.....
#4 Fox News 24 hrs a day 7 days a week year in year out obsessing with "enemies" both domestic and foreign...how else does your military keep milking the Public, America's enemies is all your gov ever talks about IMO , geez you guys go out of your way to create them just to keep your army funded and in practice (for domestic use?).
Leave Iran alone already, they are not and have never been a threat to America...
And I can't help but notice that the US makes a big legal distinction based on citizenship when it comes to rights....rights in the gift of Gov? Not universal and inalienable? Punishing people for "bad thoughts/feelings" against America? Everyone must present papers on demand everywhere and at any time?
This ain't the "America" I knew growing up...
If your Leaders feel it's in yer interest to fight and kill in the Middle East (and thereby draw their citizens into the line of fire...something your Air Force Bombers championed early in WW2 as good tactics and have never let up championing) perhaps they could do a better job of specifying precisely how such action is in "our" interest....
Well hell... if all that matters is what he's been accused of, then we need to take his accusations just as seriously as we take those of the US gov't.
Therefore:
- He was in Pakistan for religious reasons
- He is not a member of Al Qaeda
- He was incarcerated in prisons in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan, and that while in Morocco, interrogators tortured him by using scalpels to cut his chest and penis.
- His co-prisoners in Gitmo have been "savagely beaten."
- He spent time at a 'black site' where he was injected with Heroin in order get him addicted.
The funny thing about trials, is that we use them to determine whether or not someone has done the things we accuse them of. CSRTs are not trials. They are proceedings where the gov't levels accusations, the accused denies them, and the judge takes it on good faith that the gov't not lying.
WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS
Troy,are you really a lawyer? "Torture at Gitmo is a Big If?"
Ugly Canuck.... he was arrested in Sept. 2004 -- that's not quite 4 years -- not that long in war years. I guess that makes you the math expert? And yes -- I am an expert in international and criminal law thank you very much. A person indicted for capital murder in a large American city might not see a trial for 2-4 years depending on dockets, procedural matters, etc.
You (nd ll prnd lbs) need to read the law and books other than Bush Deranged literature and not rely on newspapers, Daily Kos, and Free Speech TV.
We are the only country in the industrialized world where you don't have to have ID -- no law requires a Driver's license, a SS card or anything (unless some state somewhere does of course, but on average). I worked for the State of Texas as a lawyer for a few years -- came into contact with dozens of folks who had no ID other than a birth certificate -- and if they were old enough or immigrants -- that was dicey too. We did nothing to them. They broke no law except driving without said license.
Courts are not made by Constitutional amendment, they are made by the Congress under Article III, Judiciary Act of 1789 and Article I authorizing Congress to make tribunals -- like administrative courts, courts martial, etc.
This is a great site... but the folks here are hardly Constitutional law experts. I admire and share their worries of surveillance, copyfighting, etc. But our own gov't is hardly the enemy (or the main enemy) -- whether Obama or Bush or whomever is Prez. We watch them yes, but let's not forget who the real enemy is.
Gee where's the Office of the Special Prosecutor when you need it? Oh right...the Republicans took care of that...during Clinton's Administration - what a coincidence,huh? as if they were prescient, huh?
Bush appointed two Supremes AFTER he "authorized" torture....
from my sig you can see that I'm not a USian...can your Congress abolish the Supreme Court in theory? Your "Third Branch" exists at Congress' pleasure?
explains much. As usual; lots of law, no justice.
I also think that a lrge US city is a rather atypical place to 0use for a measure as to reasonable time-to-trial for murder - large Am. cities have some of the highest murder rates in the world, IIRC . But creating the Tribunals after capturing them looks rigged. OTOH the Tribs have made some good decisions, IMHO, (now if only they would stop relieving them of Duty, etc. when they rule against the Gov.)
As part of the Chain of Command these Military Officers cannot be said to be independent of the Executive, and this taints the whole process...perhaps it takes a non-USian to see...not being directly in the line of fire, better able to see a balance (or lack therof)...no one should be judge in his own case,huh?
"
Probably should mention this:
"According to the complaint, Binyam Mohamed was planning terror attacks against high-rise apartment buildings in the United States and was arrested at an airport in Pakistan, attempting to go to London while using a forged passport."
"
In any civilized nation those are already crimes. If they actually had any evidence they could charge him in civilian criminal court just like any other crim. But that would require actual evidence wouldn't it. Much easier to just stuff him in a hole and throw away the key
Terror in Eurasia. Victory in Oceania.
@ Troy "(and that's a big "IF" at Gitmo)"
Yes, because he was already tortured in Morocco by a "Canadian" agent. No need to further break him down. He's already seeing five fingers.
-----------------------------------------
"'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four.'
The needle went up to sixty.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!'
The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!'
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Five! Five! Five!'
'No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?'
'Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!'
Abruptly he was sitting up with O'Brien's arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O'Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O'Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O'Brien who would save him from it.
'You are a slow learner, Winston,' said O'Brien gently.
'How can I help it?' he blubbered. 'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'
'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'
"
Linds has it right...the correct procedures are just too much bother, dammit, easier to get a confession by rubbing pepper in his eyes, plus we can do it in the shade.....and we'll write the Law we'll charge him under later...and set up the Court too with its own "special" rules, for when "regular" courts just won't do...
Finding evidence? Or making it?
But the Uighur case should bother everyone, it's a crystal-clear violation of the Geneva Convention prohibiting the transport of civilians over state boundaries by an occupying power UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES...WW2 gave us ample reason to make this prohibition strict by keeping its elements crystal clear and simple...
And it really looks like this Administration violated it...esp.since your courts are finding that no, the Uighurs are not "enemy combatants" - they do not meet the Admin's own definition of such...
Gitmo is grotesque Gov overreach, a means to divide Americans against themselves....and from the rest of the World...
Don't get me wrong here - bad people should be locked up in accordance with the Law obtaining at the time of the Offense alleged- but that means that the Law should be changed before the Practices of the Gov - not vice-versa - otherwise you get what you've got, Congress being forced to "hurry up" legislation that should be debated in detail - and then cast it in the Form which the Executive's prior action and practice has in effect dictated, almost forced the Congress to adopt, should it wish to 'regularize" the Administration's unquestionably extraordinary conduct.
As these are questions of the subjects' life and liberties, it seems wrong to treat such changes as akin to a Corp. resolution to approve or regularize unauthorized bizness by the Management after the fact. The Gov is not a business - which is always under the tyranny of Management or Shareholders...a corp is not a Democracy...nor should it be...
PS Hey Troy, Is it legal to strike an unresisting prisoner in Texas while you are interrogating him? or to otherwise lay hands upon her?
mindreader,
Who exactly are our enemies?
from my sig you can see that I'm not a USian
Yet, Ugly Canuck. Yet.
SURPRIZE!!! happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, haaappy biiirrrthday dear Binyam Mohamed, haaaaappy birthdaay tooooo yoooouuuu! yaaaay!! now, where's the cake and ice cream?
he only gets candles
Troy,
Try not to antagonize the other commenters on purpose. It makes it much harder for them to take your comments seriously.
It is more profitable for all that we stay separate, us allies, methinks....there are times when we cannot help, but there are times when only we can help...and the same goes for you Yanks. I think that border is very useful to many very important people on both sides of it.
I try not to comment on internal USian affairs, but its tough not to, there is such a range and variety of things that you guys are up to...and there are so very many of you. Beyond the non-national topics like religion and science I try to stick to international things, like war and peace...and the stuff that gets pushed beyond US borders, like the War on Drug Users. A nation's internal affairs are their own. Better to address injustices within one's own polity first.
That being said I do admit that if I were an American that I would be more apt to cut the Admin. some slack on this issue.(On the other hand I would be deeply offended by the partisan overtones which this Admin seems to have brought into these questions.)
Finally, I think that nation-states are artifacts of the tech obtaining at the 17th-20th C.s and that they will inevitably change form and function as tech changes...international standardization of the basic tech is the truly important thing...
Ah, but your sweet virgin forests, your succulent dam-worthy rivers, your luscious subterranean mineral deposits! What US military-industrial-congressional complex wouldn't like to tenderly strip you and leave you naked and panting under the sub-arctic sun?
sub arctic NOW...
conquest is foolish and wasteful where adequate tribute is voluntarily proferred
you need an independent nation up here to fer your dodgers both draft and tax
some of us remember the American-sponsored Fenian terrorism of the 1870's - we had a mass hanging in my home town of those rascals...
amazingly some of us still refer to the even-older 1770's as the "Troubles"....many of your most prosperous citizens came up here to help found this country..comin' on to us would be like comin' onto yourselves...
and we all remember 1812-14...why o why did we give Michigan back?
Troy, I'm one of the assistant moderators here. I'm the one who disemvoweled your first comment in this thread (ct #2). I've left your second comment (#14) intact (one of the other mods seems to have disemvoweled a four-word stretch of it for being insulting), and I want to explain why.
Your first comment was what we call a canned response. You've got this pre-built response that you obviously use when you see someone complaining about prisoner abuse at Gitmo. One of our rules here is that we discourage people who come in an deliver canned pro-authoritarian responsed in civil-rights discussions.
How can I tell it was a canned response? You clearly were not interestede in the specific details of Binyam Mohamed's case. You said "He's eating better than he has in his life", a common conservative talking point about Gitmo prisoners. Mr Mohamed, however, has been on several hunger strikes to protest his treatment.
Your second comment, while condescending, I'm leaving alone, because you are at least reading and responding to your fellow posters. You are, however, on thin ice.
@Troy:
"We are the only country in the industrialized world where you don't have to have ID -- no law requires a Driver's license, a SS card or anything (unless some state somewhere does of course, but on average). "
You cannot work in the country legally without either a SSN or a visa. Blood born american citizens cannot work without a social security number - and all american born children MUST be issued one. While it is perhaps technically possible to be a citizen without one and function, it is definitely a de facto prohibition.
"H's gttng mr d prcss thn jst bt nywhr ls. H's tng bttr thn h hs n hs lf. 30 yrs g r s h wldn't hv lvd ths lng. "
That we treated him better than a tinpot 3rd world dictator is not a point in our favor. But just in case that was true, we passed him around to several tin pot dictators to be sure he got his punishment before we ever charged him with a crime or tried him for it.
" A person indicted for capital murder in a large American city might not see a trial for 2-4 years depending on dockets, procedural matters, etc."
That guy awaiting trial for capital murder was arraigned and charged with a crime... THEN he waits 2-4 years for a trial. During that 2-4 years, his rights are clear, and he has access to representation and a well defined justice system.
The guys in Gitmo waited 4-6 years without arraignment and without charge, and without access to any defined justice system. They essentially became 'unpeople'. Whether they were bad guys before we put them there is irrelevant. Even if they were all guilty, what we have done is reprehensible, indefensible and evil. It is only made worse by the fact that more than 50% of the detainees have been released uncharged after one or more years of detention.
EVERY LIVING HUMAN BEING is entitled to due process of law in their dealings with the United States. There is no crime so heinous, no action so reprehensible that can change that. Nor is that fact changed in the slightest by whether or not they would extend us the same courtesy. That's the difference between freedom and oppression.
When deprived of our freedom, we have the right to confront our accuser, the right to know the evidence against us, and the right to knowledgeable representation.We ignored every one of these basic rules that have guided this nation, and all of western civilization since they were codified Runny Meade.
We have only two choices - we are either a nation of laws that transcend any one man or group of men, or we are a dictatorship with the only question being how our dictators come to and keep power.
A question for the moderator:
Do you also discourage people who come in an deliver canned ANTI-authoritarian responses in civil-rights discussions?
Out of curiosity, are canned anti-authoritarian responses equally discouraged? Doesn't seem fair otherwirse.
And what occurs to me is that this logic--good treatment (assuming that Mohammed has indeed eaten better in Guantanamo than out of it) is irrelevant since his rights are being violated--is the same sort used to excuse privations in Iraq--Saddam Hussein may have kept the water and power on, but the Iraqis didn't have freedom.
In other words, one of these has to be a noble act: stripping away the necessities of life to provide freedom, or stripping away freedom to provide necessities.
/me pays homage to RRSafety for saying it first.
#31 Ugly Canuck:
''...why o why did we give Michigan back?''
You did the right thing: We're broke. Do you want it back?
Please....
flamer; Where did Saddam come from? Who put him there? Why? Who finally killed him? Why?
Tak: The Kennedy-era CIA, to act as a Middle East barrier against Soviet Communism, the new Iraqi government, for crimes against humanity
respectively (calling the first two questions one and the same).
not quite: The CIA, to secure cheap oil access, America, he knew too much
Well, I got my info from the Wiki source pages. Take those with however much salt you wish.
But my dichotomy still holds. It's either right to remove a dictator at an economic loss to the country, or right to install a dictator (or a puppet) at an economic gain.
"We are the only country in the industrialized world where you don't have to have ID -- no law requires a Driver's license, a SS card or anything (unless some state somewhere does of course, but on average)."
Huh, strange, don't need any ID in Canada.
#35: hey the use of violent force to get another country to change its government is Wrong and those who resist such a thing violently are freedom fighters and patriots...they want freedom from the domination by a foreign army...is that so difficult to understand...no man's freedom is in another man's gift unless you are speaking literally ie relaeasing those in the Bastille, or Gitmo...US Armed Forces....
Neither of the false choices presented are noble acts - The noblest act is to refrain from stripping...to consider that to be beneath you...especially if you're not fair and balanced...
and this "economic loss" you're speaking of...what is the price of blood? Or of futures lost forever?
With no necessities you are free to die...let em try to stop you
flamer, i believe your first statement, that the prisoner's rights ARE being violated, to be true. but am completely stumped as to your logic in the second:"one of these has to be a noble act: stripping away the necessities of life to provide freedom, or stripping away freedom to provide necessities." i think the only truly noble thing would have been to leave their country alone from the beginning. the iraqi people have seen nothing but death and destruction since the british, then we, began interfering in their affairs. i just cannot find any noble thing about it. the gitmo prisoners should file the largest class action lawsuit ever leveled at this govt. and i hope they win. our treatment of those prisoners has opened the door for any enemy to treat our young men and women soldiers with the same ruthless barbarity.
Then terrorism designed to get the US to change its foreign policies is Wrong and the US Armed Forces, by virtue of their violent resistence, are freedom fighters and patriots? (Unless you want to claim that terrorism against the US is not politically motivated, but based on religious or racial bigotry.)
Personally I disagree. I think it is right to use force to change a government in the direction of freedom. If the Netherlands wanted to invade Mississipi to remove their restrictions on sex and drugs, I'd support that cause. If they wanted to invade to increase their taxes, then I wouldn't. That's my criterion.
Finally, who asked you to "help" in Iraq? Bah. It's all over but the withdrawal anyway, a long pointless waste....but it did serve to delay any domestic policy reforms not having to do with surveillance, huh?
as well as bankrupted our dollar, made us global gutterpunks, caused great dissention amongst our people , oh, i could go on, and on.
Of course terrorism is wrong y dt, terror is a pointless cruel and counterproductive tactic targeting civilians...like whoever was able to dump dozens of mangled tortured bodies every night throughout Bagdad at the height of the American Occupation...you remember, when the US decided to take on the job of providing security and governance to their friends the Iraqis...or those who threaten entire countries with"obliteration" - but what you are speaking of wrt US Forces is "counter-terror", which IMO is the same damned thing....US Armed Forces should be defending not attacking...and those who actually did violently resist the terror attacks are patriots and heroes...but sadly they were ordinary Joes, the Armed Forces were doing something else on 9-11...maybe the C-in-C could enlighten us as to their whereabouts on that occasion...it's not like you guys haven't spent enough of the forces, is it?...and the use of Force in all circumstances is barbaric and vile and is only justifiable by the most stringent necessity....and the too-quick resort to force shows a lack of imagination in dealing with challenges...and may simply evince plain old stupid human badness, nothing noble or redeeming or effective about it...like the Martians in Mars Attacks!, that's the vision of the US Forces I get in Iraq....
"we are your friends!"...KA-BOOM!
Bah. You guys need better leadership...
TROY,
If you're so fond of using ''Bush Deranged'' as an adjective, lets smooth out a lump in your education — and use a fucking hyphen! Like so: ''Bush-deranged.''
We don't want to sound like an illiterate now, do we, Sir? Not a high-toned gentleman lawyer like you.
yo, pissed off/alternately-beautiful hoser, c'mon down and get on the ballot! u gots my vote.
There's no need for ad hominem; we're making such progress. Now, if we agree that terrorism is wrong, and remember that we're using your definition of terrorism as violence designed to change a government, what should be the remedy? You say, "the use of Force in all circumstances is barbaric and vile and is only justifiable by the most stringent necessity, and the too-quick resort to force shows a lack of imagination in dealing with challenges" but if terrorism is not such a stringent necessity, then does it not become a viable tactic, and usable against any country we see fit? In other words, if what we are doing in Iraq is terrorism, shouldn't the Iraqis respond by a means other than force?
But we digress. There is a fellow in Guantanamo Bay being denied his freedom. I say, let the facts be laid bare to determine whether this is just or not. But if the community at large values freedom so much that justice is considered secondary, then I will support any and all future unjust bestowings of freedom.
The US attack on Iraq was unprovoked. Self-defense during an attack is permitted, demanded by life itself. In no way was the USA a victim of Iraqi action...
There was no "self-defense" possible on 9-11, and bringing the Criminals who yet lived and were responsible to the Criminal justice system for trial and punishment would have been the normal course....so why was the normal course not followed? Political expediency and a heaven-sent opportunity for a presidential Power Play? What of the Anthrax terrorists? No longer important, kept the pot boiling to get that already-drafted Patriot Act into Law, now forgotten... So your gov could massively expand its powers to hold indefinitely without charge and to physically and mentally mistreat hundreds if not thousands in taxpayer funded hellholes around the World? To use the tragedy as an an "opportunity" to demonstrate the Raw Power of an American president? To spy without warrant or meaningful oversight on all domestic communications without exception? To assert that the President can Order the Murder of American Citizens (in Yemen by Hellfire missile)? to establish the principle that a president can Order that people be beaten and mistreated cause the Pres. wants it so? No questions, no review?
it is tyranny, tyranny of an elected office, one which carries the Right it now seems to Order the deaths and beatings of human beings without oversight or Law...
Was not the use of the tragic events of 9-11 to create a Monster out of the Presidency a crime in itself? It was certainly not political fair ball, pushing through fundamental changes all in a rush at such a time...indecent haste. Using this tragedy as a means for political gain....
Treat those at gitmo like you treat all other prisoners. No special exceptions for the special courts...otherwise why should we non-Americans not fear the worst? That America has become a violent Police State with no guarantee of security for travellers or its own citizens against the Police....don't hear much about the prisoner in Virginia? strangled to death while in solitary waiting arraignment on charges of running over a cop...who cares he's only a prisoner....well that's America for you...and no further bottom-up political change will be permitted...
tell me why should we continue as Allies with such a State?
Quid pro quo, Ugly_Canuck. The attacks on the US--the WTC, the Khobar Towers, the Cole, 9/11--were unprovoked. Everyone knows that when you attack a people unprovoked, you only turn them into terrorists. The only way to stop them from becoming terrorists is to withdraw and sue for peace. The US is just reacting naturally. Except we, being democratic, outsource our terror to the government.
Regardless of the semantics, what the US has done and what it has had done to it are mirror images. The US should stop its governmental empowerment only when the rest of the world stops its private terror-organization empowerment.
"tell me why should we continue as Allies with such a State?"
Feel free not to be. Just take the same attitude toward us that you do against other extremist groups with which you are not allied: condemn us in words, while including caveats about our rights, and take no action.
The US is the position of having been attacked by a so-called "friend" and having then retaliated by beating a bunch of nearly innocent bystanders to death. Regardless of any moral or ethical dimension, this seems grossly inefficient.
--Charlie
# 54: We're with you all the way in Afghanistan regardless of what you may think of our style. Stop pretending you're alone.
RRSafety #34 and FlamingPhoneBook #35, about canned anti-authoritarian responses, no, we generally have not had to discourage such. This may seem unfair, but the cases aren't really symmetrical.
See, the Boingers are generally pro-civil-liberties, anti-authoritarian people. So someone coming into a civil-libs thread with a canned response is arguing with the poster, badly. This is an offense; if you're going to argue with someone on their own blog, you should at least take the effort to do it well.
On the other hand, someone coming into a thread to deliver a canned pro-civil-libs response is probably agreeing with the poster, albeit badly. This is less offensive.
Which is not to say that anti-authoritarians are immune from disemvoweling. Will Shetterly is an anti-authoritarian who's run afoul of Antinous and myself a few times. But his comments weren't canned.
Sorry I didn't get back to you on this yesterday, but I wanted to check with Teresa. She's trying to keep discussion of moderation in the moderation threads.