Showing posts with label definition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label definition. Show all posts

28 April 2013

Neither portal nor destination be

This is a set of musings on the nature of blogging brought on via a post at Stacy McCain's site Where Were You in 2002? (h/t: Insty).

Seeing Overlawyered moving over to Cato spurred on the question about 'making the big time' and 'are you a portal or destination?' in Stacy McCain's post.

In 2002 I was healthy, working, and helping to get the last of the Afghan materials out the door in the Agency I worked in before moving over to my R&D slot which I had requested a temporary re-assignment after 9/11/01.  This did not mean I was not interested in blogging, far from it, I was an avid reader of a number of early blogs and attended conferences featuring both Old and New Media (like the old Seybold Seminars or Print '97).  Part of my work was to scour the early web for material and avenues of presenting and using data that were new or novel, that would help move information to the warfighter.  That meant learning all I could about everything from blogging to 3D interfaces to the coming transition to the post-32 bit world and IPv6.  The methodology is straight out of James Burke's Connections series: let the pinball effect give you information and insights from multiple realms and see if the ideas cross into the realm you inhabit so as to allow it to adapt and change.

It is from that perspective that I took in the idea that the Internet is not about portals and destinations, hubs and spokes, nor even about connected clouds of users and information.  I can't tell you who put it like this, there are numerous possible authors, but I picked up on the idea that the Internet, blogs, media sites... the entire thing from static repositories of information like the reference work sites I link to all the way to Big Old Media sites... are something called a hyperlinked conversation.  Hyperlinks are generic in type, they are an unbiased connectivity form for the electronic New Media.  Hyperlinks are also that most powerful of things that mankind invented in the Old Media: an indexing tool.

That comes from James Burke and the power of an index of a book, that list of ideas and pages where they appear, is that they allow you to cross-index.  You can take an idea word, go to a page, find another idea word, go to its index, and find things that it links to via the index.  Hyperlinks do this exact, same function, but a far faster than you can with a static, read-only memory system with a hand/finger interface with leafs to flip through known as a book.  What a hyperlink allows, however, is the ability to show source of an idea via that link, and you can find other ideas that are linked to in the article/video/etc. and follow those links to see how ideas connect.  Everything, even the person who is a minimal utility node in a Metcalfe's Law network offers utility because you can use a search engine (of your choice) to then find out all the other people who link to an article/video/etc. and follow those links back to their sources.  Even the most dead-end of sites, those that studiously don't link to other bloggers, is still connected to them via the link to the source material and your ability to check other incoming links and go back to those sites to find out what ideas are there.  The hyperlink is thus an indexing tool for ideas.

From this there is no such thing as a 'portal' nor 'destination', no 'hub' nor 'spoke', nor even 'communities' of blogs and sites.  What there are is conversations that link to ideas forming their own interconnected set of sites, pathways, and journeys. Following James Burke this means that no site that requires human thought to construct sentences that purvey ideas, that have a logic connecting them, is alone unless it links to no one, and accepts no links and is an isolated node.

That is what I thought in 2002.

People can move around, become highlights or disappear, as I am largely doing, and yet the conversation continues within and amongst humanity.  It is a huge, extended conversation that now includes mini-thoughts via Twitter, picture thoughts and video thoughts (not necessarily stories but just thoughts and ideas) and it is all connected by the generic thing we call the hyperlink.  It is one of the most powerful tools deployed by mankind, and yet its actual invention starts with indexing.  It is the simple but powerful things that move minds, spirits and humanity.  That also has a precursor description in the Noosphere and the Internet can just be seen as a crude, physical form of Noosphere, not the thing, itself.  The next simple tool will not supplant the hyperlink nor index, but will move that conception one more step and then everything changes. 

And yet where it comes from will be obvious. 

What it will enable is beyond imagining. 

Just like the hyperlink and Internet before the invention of the hyperlink.

I can remember where I was in 2002... and with difficulty back to 1992 when there was only the first hint of html via sgml.  Yes, I can do that.  Can you remember the world without the Internet?

14 December 2010

Some thoughts on Julian Assange

Just a thought on the NYT report that Assange has gotten the UK courts to get a bail amount set for him.

First off the publication of the information that prompted his detainment is not the first time he has done so against the US government, and prior ones included the names and information about our sources and methods in Afghanistan.

Second the civil law may not hold much of a venue against a mere publisher of such information.

Third, drafting any such ex-post facto law is truly horrific as one could never know what is and is not legal to do at any time. The civil law is not the place of venue for Mr. Assange on such publication matters, quite obviously.

Thus we start with the full documents on the International Humanitarian Law held by the ICRC, and go down to the Methods and Means of Warfare.

From that list I will start with the Lieber Code that was instantiated by President Abraham Lincoln for the Union forces 1863, which continued to be used into the 1890's.  Thus this part is of interest not only about Mr. Assange, but his informants and highlighting is mine throughout:

Art. 88. A spy is a person who secretly, in disguise or under false pretense, seeks information with the intention of communicating it to the enemy.
The spy is punishable with death by hanging by the neck, whether or not he succeed in obtaining the information or in conveying it to the enemy.

Art. 89. If a citizen of the United States obtains information in a legitimate manner, and betrays it to the enemy, be he a military or civil officer, or a private citizen, he shall suffer death.

Art. 90. A traitor under the law of war, or a war-traitor, is a person in a place or district under Martial Law who, unauthorized by the military commander, gives information of any kind to the enemy, or holds intercourse with him.

Art. 91. The war-traitor is always severely punished. If his offense consists in betraying to the enemy anything concerning the condition, safety, operations, or plans of the troops holding or occupying the place or district, his punishment is death.

Well that starts to put a sort of proper perspective on things as the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force is a Declaration of War.  Thus those helping us in Afghanistan are brought into the conflict and the publication of their names is a direct help to the enemies of the US.  Really, you shouldn't do that during wartime.

Now to skip ahead to the Hague Convention II 1899:

CHAPTER II
On spies
Art. 29. An individual can only be considered a spy if, acting clandestinely, or on false pretences, he obtains, or seeks to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.

Thus, soldiers not in disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of a hostile army to obtain information are not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not considered spies: soldiers or civilians, carrying out their mission openly, charged with the delivery of despatches destined either for their own army or for that of the enemy. To this class belong likewise individuals sent in balloons to deliver despatches, and generally to maintain communication between the various parts of an army or a territory.

Art. 30. A spy taken in the act cannot be punished without previous trial.

Art. 31. A spy who, after rejoining the army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy, is treated as a prisoner of war, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts of espionage.

Whoever provided the information to Mr. Assange would be considered a spy in the Hague Conventions.  Would Mr. Assange?  If he was just given the information and went through proper channels at DoD to ask about publication, the answer would be 'no': the information would have been cleared by a power in the war.  As he did not do so and did communicate the information to our enemies in the field, then his activity is that of espionage.  Similarly the 1907 Hague Convention IV has the same verbiage for Spies.

Now onto another part of this with the Hague Convention V 1907 which deals with Neutral countries:

THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS

Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3. Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:
(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;
(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5. A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.

It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

Art. 6. The responsibility of a neutral Power is not engaged by the fact of persons crossing the frontier separately to offer their services to one of the belligerents.

Art. 7. A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.

Art. 8. A neutral Power is not called upon to forbid or restrict the use on behalf of the belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to it or to companies or private individuals.

Art. 9. Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken by a neutral Power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be impartially applied by it to both belligerents.

A neutral Power must see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private individuals owning telegraph or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus.

I do love the formality of such things!

The Convention covers the countries and Neutral persons:

CHAPTER III

NEUTRAL PERSONS

Art. 16. The nationals of a State which is not taking part in the war are considered as neutrals.

Art. 17 A neutral cannot avail himself of his neutrality
(a) If he commits hostile acts against a belligerent;
(b) If he commits acts in favor of a belligerent
, particularly if he voluntarily enlists in the ranks of the armed force of one of the parties. In such a case, the neutral shall not be more severly treated by the belligerent as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality than a national of the other belligerent State could be for the same act.

Art. 18. The following acts shall not be considered as committed in favour of one belligerent in the sense of
Article 17, letter (b):
(a) Supplies furnished or loans made to one of the belligerents, provided that the person who furnishes the supplies or who makes the loans lives neither in the territory of the other party nor in the territory occupied by him, and that the supplies do not come from these territories;
(b) Services rendered in matters of police or civil administration.

Well espionage, which includes the transmittal of information is helping out a party to a conflict or, more appropriately, against a party to a conflict.

Now a fascinating addition to the Hague Conventions are the Hague Rules 1923 that cover wireless transmission, as they would also apply to our current mixed-mode internet:

Art. 8. Neutral mobile wireless stations shall abstain from keeping a written copy of wireless messages received from belligerent military wireless stations, unless such messages are destined for the said neutral stations.

The violation of this rule entitles the belligerents to confiscate the texts in question.

Oh, and that would mean Mr. Assange was taking sides in the conflict(s) the US is in, by his own action.

The Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention only covers espionage as it relates to occupied territory, and deals more in the field than things outside of it.  Full trials are to be provided for 'protected persons' (civilians) in the area of occupation for any offenses (military or civil) done there.  Thus as Afghanistan has been liberated but still requires the presence of US forces to maintain its integrity against hostile elements at war with both Nations, that means that either party in the territory (Afghanistan or the US) may utilize the general schema.  Now given that full trial and appeals are available, lets look at what is within its confines:

Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Art. 69. In all cases the duration of the period during which a protected person accused of an offence is under arrest awaiting trial or punishment shall be deducted from any period of imprisonment of awarded.

Art. 70. Protected persons shall not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power for acts committed or for opinions expressed before the occupation, or during a temporary interruption thereof, with the exception of breaches of the laws and customs of war.

Nationals of the occupying Power who, before the outbreak of hostilities, have sought refuge in the territory of the occupied State, shall not be arrested, prosecuted, convicted or deported from the occupied territory, except for offences committed after the outbreak of hostilities, or for offences under common law committed before the outbreak of hostilities which, according to the law of the occupied State, would have justified extradition in time of peace.

So it is a multipart thing that allows for trials: espionage, or serious acts of sabotage against military installations, or intentional offenses which caused the death of one or more persons.  For Afghanistan the recourse is to its own civil code to see what the punishments would be, while for the US we could use our military code or the Taliban civil code as that was pre-existing prior to hostilities.  Really you would have a better chance with the current regime than the US.  Perhaps Mr. Assange will give himself up to them?

The US has not signed up to the 1977 Geneva Convetions so they are not considered as part of what is or is not espionage for the US.

Thus we quickly run out of what to do with Mr. Assange: he is performing the act of partisan espionage contrary to his status as Neutral citizen.  He is violating the Neutrality that is garnered him by being a non-combatant civilian and actively working against one of the belligerents in a conflict to supply information to the enemies of that belligerent.  Yes our civil laws may be lacking here, but we are at war and peace has not been declared in either Iraq or Afghanistan, nor have the Congressionally set objectives given to the Executive been met.

The case of Julian Assange and Wikileaks is not one of civil courts, but courts martial, and any Nation involved in Afghanistan can put out that he is a threat to their troops in the field and their allies.

Of course that would be the civilized thing to do: get Mr. Assange a full military trial with defense lawyers to account for his activities of breaking his neutrality and publishing such information injurious to the US and those who have helped it, as well as those we have liberated.  But then we stopped acting civilized when we started trying to treat war as a 'police matter'... instead of as war.

Perhaps we can start to treat civil actions differently from martial actions, and start to recognize those making Private War upon us just as all Nations since the dawn of history have done.  Mind you, that isn't pretty.  But it is civilized, if you have the stomach to be civilized, that is.

13 February 2010

Same planet, different worlds

Reading a recent column by David Ignatius at RealClearPolitics I am struck by something that has begun to change in America due to the Tea Party movement.  It is a strong, very strong, sense that those who once had a great capability to describe the world as it was have not adapted to the world as it is.

The last time I had a similar feeling was at the end of the 1980's and heading into the 1990's.  The collapse of the Soviet Bloc (in general Eastern European Communist regimes) and the final fall of the USSR itself, by dissolving out of existence, then left an entire class of the pundit class at sea.  They were the ones who could only see the USSR lasting at least to 2030 if not longer, and saw no structural problems within the Soviet system or amongst its outlying satellite states.  This was the grim and gruesome crowd that knew we would 'always have the USSR to kick around'.  Mind you, the ever ready CIA agreed with that position, too.

Then came Solidarity and Gorbie and soon the entire edifice was crumbling.  Poland 10 years, Hungary 10 months, Czechoslovakia 10 weeks, Romania 10 days and East Germany 10 hours.  One decade a mighty USSR that is everlasting and a decade later 'where the hell did it get to?'  It was the seemingly impossible snowballing to take out all previous assumptions and constructions with it and those who were hardest hit were minorities... just kidding!  No the hardest hit were the Kremlinologists who had their 'sources' to 'know' what was 'going on' in the Kremlin.  Or at least that small bar off the square near the hotel where the double-agents hung out.  Their credibility went from supremo-maximo, must consult before any decision so as to not get global thermonuclear war over a minor trade dispute, to 'what a bunch of morons'!

You know, the over-educated elite punditry?  Those were the morons.

Really, morons need lessons.

Fast-forward to a massive lending crisis involving a few institutions (Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Citibank) and a huge government over-response (throw tons of cash at everyone, force secret deals, keep the system going!!!) that has made things worse by stifling the market and upsetting the normal rule of law and the course of bankruptcies.  Pulled into that were two automakers that deserved to be taken down a few million notches: GM and Chrysler.  Actually GM is a lending institution (GMAC) that makes cars as a side-show, and the government wanted to get its fingers into GMAC as did the head of GM.  Gotta love that 'government getting into bed with industry' sort of deal that made Mussolini a household name back in the late 1920's early 1930's.

The reaction to all of this has been the sudden appearance of the Tea Party movement, foreshadowed by the Porkbusters movement during the later Bush years.  From 'trimming the pork' and 'finding the waste' to 'Taxed Enough Already' in only a couple of years, going from a concerted group of the interested to involving their friends, relatives and neighbors in a few massive federal bailouts.  Change is in the air and it isn't of the 'hope & change' variety, either.  Thus reading David Ignatius has that ever so eerie feeling of Kremlinologists spouting off about the durability of the USSR, and 'certain ways things will always be done' and, generally, missing the fact that the Eastern Bloc was crumbling wasn't really happening at all, just some 'minor adjustments' to the USSR.  The world could use some minor adjustments like that in Old Europe, which David Ignatius points out. 

What he misses, though, is the entire tone of what needs to be done. Consider these two opening paragraphs and I will highlight the things that really get to me:

WASHINGTON -- At the risk of taking contrarianism to extremes, let me offer this suggestion: The global economy needs a "tea party" movement in Europe to lobby for fiscal conservatism there.

Many "mainstream" analysts deride the tea party agitators as a right-wing fringe group, and in many respects, that label is deserved. I wouldn't want them running the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve.

The last part, first: I don't want eggheads like Little Timmy "The Smartest Guy In The Room Who Can't Figure Out TurboTax" Geithner running the Treasury.  From that experience of the tax code did Lil Timmy figure out the tax code was too damned complex for an egghead like himself?  Nope.  BTW he was in charge of the NY Fed and a major source of our financial problems and regulatory enforcement and pushing for different regulations.  So I would, actually, like someone who has been on the pointy end of the financial system and who can learn their lessons to be the head of the Treasury... and I don't see why we need the Federal Reserve as it is very convenient to politicians and turns out to be quite costly to the people as it makes the exact same mistakes of the 1920's all over again in the 1990's to 2008 era.  Save that we have Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie and a much more massive government presence in markets than it ever had in the 1920's.

But its that first part that really lets me know that a pundit is about to find out that although he is on the same planet as I am, we are living in different worlds.  The code words 'fiscal conservatism' have a definite meaning in DC:  conservatives who want to restrain the growth of government.  They want to manage government growth.  The underlying concept is that they want more government not less of it.  This is conservatism of a Progressive venue in that it never, not once, asks: 'Are all these things government does justified and supportable under the US Constitution?'

These are the folks derided by the Left when they want to 'restrain growth' as the Left claims those are 'cutting government'?  But that is not the case as the responsibilities and costs of what has been done before continue onwards.  What the Left complains about is that government is not growing fast enough for their liking.  This is what happens when Progressives remain unchallenged for decades: they so twist the meaning of words and concepts that black becomes white and they get killed at the next Zebra crossing (as per Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).  Thus not growing is shrinking, growing slowly is stifling and only when there is robust government growth do they complain about the slow rate of government growth.  By casting no growth as 'cuts' the Left 'wins' the important kudos of 'providing more of taxpayers money to non-taxpayers as such swell Congresscritters' Award.

Now the commentariate, the modern day Kremlinologists of the two party system who have 'fiscal conservatives' pegged as slow-growth Republicans are seeing their ideas being left way out on muddy expanses and wondering 'what the hell is that wall of water across the entire horizon?'  That, as was found out in 2004, is a tsunami.  If my feeling on this is right (and I've only had it one other time beyond the USSR era when Bill Gates famously said that '640K was enough for anyone') then that old idea of 'fiscal conservatism' for Europe (i.e. slow growth conservatism) is about to find that the only place that might make sense is inside Europe.  As Mr. Ignatius points out, Europe can no more get a Tea Party together than it can figure out that all these unassimilated Muslims really aren't Europeans.

This concept of 'fiscal conservatives' is cemented in the next paragraph:

But these conservative populists do perform the useful function of focusing American political attention on the need for fiscal responsibility. They make a good point, for example, in arguing that we shouldn't add a major new entitlement program for health care until we've figured out how to pay for the entitlement programs we've already got.

Hell even the NYT/CBS group that had a poll last week understands that a majority of Americans would take a cut in services to reduce spending.  That goes beyond the WaPo/ABC poll and Rasmussen Reports poll where 63% want smaller government.  This is slowly becoming something that isn't about health care but about the current entitlement system which is broken beyond political repair.  This is not old-time Republican 'fiscal conservatism' that is brewing in America, but something that hasn't been around since the 1830's - a disgust for powerful government.  The Tea Partiers are representative of those Americans who not only want 'fiscal conservatism' but to start addressing the entitlement programs we have, and not figure out how to pay for them... just reduce or eliminate them.  Smaller government and fewer services doesn't mean paying for what we have, but reducing the outlays, powers and taxing power of the government simultaneously.

Like I said, I'm getting that Kremlinologist/Bill Gates feeling going on here and it won't be pretty for the indentured servitude party pundits who can't imagine what liberty and freedom are like because they have read their own material for too long.  That feeling of life-time service to a way of thought comes through clearly in the last paragraph:

I wouldn't really wish the tea party movement on anyone, but the Europeans could use some of its passion about fiscal responsibility. And while we're thinking contrarian thoughts, how about a "conspicuous consumer" movement in high-saving Asia to push for greater domestic spending there?

No, he really can't understand the Tea Party movement as his fellow Americans take up the banner of liberty and freedom which clearly states: Don't Tread On Me.

And while we are on authoritarian ideals, why don't we just wish governments would tell people what to do, tax the hell out of them to do it, restrain their liberty and freedom and make them servants to government because government 'knows best'.

So while I'm thinking contrarian thoughts, wouldn't it be great if the punditcrats got out of their cubicles, their cushy brie and chardonnay get togethers, their damned echo chambers and actually went out into neighborhoods and just talked with folks instead of talking at them?  Luckily we have the internet for that.

Yet another thing Bill Gates didn't expect to catch on...

12 June 2009

The war to establish despotism

From die.net word search:

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Despotism \Des"po*tism\, n. [Cf. F. despotisme.]

1. The power, spirit, or principles of a despot; absolute control over others; tyrannical sway; tyranny. ``The despotism of vice.'' --Byron.

2. A government which is directed by a despot; a despotic monarchy; absolutism; autocracy.

Despotism . . . is the only form of government which may with safety to itself neglect the education of its infant poor. --Bp. Horsley.

Despotism is totalitarian control of others, particularly regarded as absolute control of a Nation's citizens by a government or other ruler.

Consider the killing of Pvt. William Long, in Arkansas from KATV 01 JUN 2009:

Little Rock - Authorities have identified the soldier killed in Monday's double-shooting outside a U.S Army recruitment office in west Little Rock.

According to Pulaski County Coroner Garland Camper, 23-year-old William Long of Conway died shortly after being transported to a Little Rock hospital.

Police say the incident occurred around 10:15 a.m. at a U.S. Army Navy Career Center inside the Ashley Square Shopping Center at 9112 North Rodney Parham Road. According to Lt. Terry Hastings with the Little Rock Police Department, two enlisted soldiers standing outside the office were hit when a suspect drove up in a black SUV and began shooting.

At a briefing Monday afternoon, Little Rock police chief Stuart Thomas identified the suspect as Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, of Little Rock. Thomas says Muhammad also goes by the name Carlos Bledsoe.
Hastings identified the second wounded soldier as Quinton Ezeagwula, age unknown. He remains at a local hospital in stable condition with non-life-threatening injuries.

The NW Arkansas Times gives background on Muhammad's background including his radicalization during a trip to Yemen, and KATV follows that up with further background and the current state of Muhammad.  An interesting thing about reading those two links is the heart of Christian forgiveness is very much present for someone who, in no way, has an excuse for his crime.  That heart of charity is still a vital one in America, and we dare not forget that even as we see the horrific acts carried out by the man brought in for his crimes after being chased down by police.

ABC News reports that Muhammad traveled to Yemen under a Somali passport, which is well nigh possible due to the lack of government there along with absence of document control.  What is telling is the report at CNSNews from AP on 10 JUN 2009:

Little Rock, Ark. (AP) - A Muslim convert charged with fatally shooting an American soldier at a military recruiting center said Tuesday that he doesn't consider the killing a murder because U.S. military action in the Middle East made the killing justified.

"I do feel I'm not guilty," Abdulhakim Muhammad told The Associated Press in a collect call from the Pulaski County jail. "I don't think it was murder, because murder is when a person kills another person without justified reason."

[..]

Muhammad told the AP he admitted to his actions to police and said he was retaliating against the U.S. military.

"Yes, I did tell the police upon my arrest that this was an act of retaliation, and not a reaction on the soldiers personally," Muhammad said. He called it "a act, for the sake of God, for the sake of Allah, the Lord of all the world, and also a retaliation on U.S. military."

In the interview, Muhammad also disputed his lawyer's claim that he had been "radicalized" in a Yemeni prison and said fellow prisoners that some call terrorists were actually "very good Muslim brothers."

He also said he didn't specifically plan the shootings that morning.

"It's been on my mind for awhile. It wasn't nothing planned really. It was just the heat of the moment, you know," said Muhammad, who was arrested on a highway shortly after the attack.

[..]

He said the U.S. military would never treat Christians and their Scriptures in the same manner.

"U.S. soldiers are killing innocent Muslim men and women. We believe that we have to strike back. We believe in eye for an eye. We don't believe in turning the other cheek," he said.

Asked whether he considered the shootings at the recruiting center an act of war, Muhammad said "I didn't know the soldiers personally, but yes, it was an attack of retaliation. And I feel that other attacks, not by me or people I know, but definitely Muslims in this country and others elsewhere, are going to attack for doing those things they did," especially desecrating the Quran.

That is someone who does not recognize the sovereignty we invest in the Nation State to wage war on behalf of society.  In trying to devolve conflicts that the US is involved in at the behest of Congress and due to an attack on the US homeland, Muhammad has decided that his ideology, his religion, is paramount over all Nations.  When one takes up killing for this reason and will not recognize the sovereignty of the Nations involved, he defines himself as a threat to all Nations.  He sees himself acting in accordance with a 'higher law' that will not recognize the laws of Earth set up under the Law of Nature to differentiate ourselves from Nature.

He cannot even distinguish between his personal act of war and normal predation against society.  He protests that it wasn't pre-meditated, and yet that he had thought a long time about this and had multiple weapons in his vehicle.  To do that, to think about retaliation against soldiers while not being a soldier, for putting those weapons in his vehicle and then taking up to make war on his own does not require him to know the difference.  Indeed, if one has reverted fully to the Law of Nature there IS NO DIFFERENCE in forms of war and all are equal.  That is his view, as he states it, that he is fully justified in taking up the cause of war against soldiers of a Nation while not being a soldier or under any sovereign power save that which he believes in which is no Nation.

Such attacks when done in the name of religion to commit an act of war is the attempt to destabilize a Nation's society and make some form of moral equivalence between war done under the restrictions of civilization and those done under the Law of Nature, and yet one holds an individual accountable for their actions to society and the other does not.  His invocation of Muslim law, Sharia law, to justify his acts are an attempt to establish LEGITIMACY of them so that other followers can terrorize society to enforce their will upon society.

That is the heart of despotism: seeking to establish a tyrannical rule over others, in this case using fear as the weapon of choice beyond the blood spilled to his 'cause'.  We have heard this countless times in the past from those seeking to support that killing under no banner, no flag, wearing no uniform, under no command structure and being accountable only to a 'higher power' that can't be reasoned with is just that activity and places such individuals as outlaws to all societies, all Nations.  That is the banner of your beliefs over all others, and that not only makes him a criminal but makes him a killer unrestrained by reason and refusing to acknowledge temporal law over him.  By doing that he casts himself out from society, not the other way around.  And what he wants in the place of the society that exists is one that is subservient to a religion that has deep problems recognizing temporal law as something separate from religious law.

He seeks the despotism of a religion over society to dictate to it and rule it absolutely.

 

At the Holocaust Memorial Museum the murder of Stephen Tyrone Johns, a black security guard, by a white supremacist is examined at Fox News on 11 JUN 2009.  We are slowly coming to learn as much about James Von Brunn as Abdulhakim Muhammad as the events unfold:

Von Brunn, who was shot and critically wounded after he burst into the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and opened fire, was sending increasingly violent messages. In one e-mail, he wrote, "It's time to kill all the Jews," according to the Post.

He also told friends he was in financial trouble and was going to give away his computer.

"He said his Social Security had been cut and that he was barely making it," acquaintance John de Nugent, a self-described white separatist, told the Post. "He felt it was the direct result of someone in Washington looking at his Web site."

[..]

Von Brunn, a World War II veteran, had long been known in white supremacist circles for his racist rants and extreme hatred of Jews and blacks. He lives in Annapolis, Md., and has a history of anger, abusive behavior, anti-Semitism and anti-government aggression.

The Web site attributed to Von Brunn says he wrote a book called "Kill the Best Gentiles," about how to "protect your white family."

Online writings said to be Von Brunn's claim the Holocaust was a hoax and lambaste a Jewish conspiracy to "destroy the white gene pool."

The guard he shot and killed actually opened up the door for him to the Memorial, giving help to an older man because that is the kind and courteous thing to do.

At KUSI on 11 JUN 2009 there is further reporting:

Law enforcement officials said James W. von Brunn, a white supremacist, was under investigation in the shooting and that his car was found near the museum and tested for explosives. The weapon was a .22-caliber rifle, they added. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss the investigation just beginning.

When von Brunn was captured he possessed a list he had made of lawmakers on Capitol Hill, according to another law enforcement officer who requested anonymity. The purpose of the list was not immediately clear, the official said.

The dead guard, Stephen Tyrone Johns, 39, was a six-year veteran of the facility who lived in Temple Hills, Md. Museum Director Sara Bloomfield said he "died heroically in the line of duty."

[..]

Von Brunn has a racist, anti-Semitic Web site and wrote a book titled "Kill the Best Gentiles," alleging a Jewish conspiracy "to destroy the white gene pool." Writings attributed to von Brunn on the Internet say the Holocaust was a hoax.

In 1983, he was convicted of attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board and served more than six years in prison. He was arrested two years earlier outside the room where the board was meeting, carrying a revolver, knife and sawed-off shotgun. At the time, police said von Brunn wanted to take the members hostage because of high interest rates and the nation's economic difficulties.

"At Auschwitz the 'Holocaust' myth became Reality, and Germany, cultural gem of the West, became a pariah among world nations," it says.

[..]

Navy records show von Brunn enlisted in 1942 as an apprentice seaman before accepting an appointment as a naval midshipmen in the volunteer reserves in March 1943. On his application for enlistment, the 21-year-old listed his reason for signing up as "patriotic." His records show he had language qualifications in both English and French after spending three years in college. He was discharged from the Navy in 1956.

A cousin, Virginia Gerker of St. Louis, said in an interview she hadn't seen him in 50 years. She said her family had "disowned" him and believed him to be mentally ill.

About a dozen years ago, he applied to have his art shown at a gallery in Easton, Md., according to two of the owners. Laura Era and Jennifer Wharton said they rejected his work and he stomped out.

Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center said von Brunn's Web site has long been listed as a hate site.

"We've been tracking this guy for decades," said Heidi Beirich, director of research for the law center's Intelligence Project, which tracks hate crimes. "He thinks the Jews control the Federal Reserve, the banking system, that basically all Jews are evil."

The Rev. David Ostendorf, executive director of the Center for a New Community in Chicago, a national civil rights group, said von Brunn has described in his own writings a long relationship with Willis Carto, founder of the Liberty Lobby, the Spotlight Newspaper and a well-known white supremacist and anti-Semite.

Here a white supremacist, racist, anti-semite who also believes in killing off 'the Best Gentiles' inflicts his beliefs upon an innocent man who serves to protect others while visiting the Holocaust Memorial Museum.  He, too, has a stark view of the world and has demonstrated that he was more than willing to take the law into his own hands and operate outside the law.  His idolization of Nazi Germany however is telling, and gains him the label of 'Neo-Nazi' and not without some justification.

It is the actual acting out of these ideals, on his own, and in a way consistent with his beliefs that is highly disturbing.  The idolatry of a Fascist State that turned to exterminating its own citizens of Jewish origin, as well as Gypsies, the mentally and physically handicapped and others that were regarded as not wanted to 'purify' a race demonstrates some level of accepting that concept as a good one.  That is to link National Socialism with racial supremacy and then blame all the ills of a Nation and oneself on those who were Jewish or black is something that must be stood against.  That is not a belief of someone from the 'right' any more than that of Abdulhakim Muhammad is.

They both stand for a supremacy of government under their own totalitarian desires to enforce its will upon society.  That is backing despotic rule: one under religious pretexts and the other under racial ones.  That concept of using the 'binding' power of government to do this is not something that grows out of supporting individual liberty, individual freedom, and individual rights: it grows out of supporting government to take over decision making for society.  That is in no way, shape or form something those supporting the Rights of Man as an Individual will ever countenance.  Nor is it one that any old-school Nationalist will subscribe to, as the Nation is an outgrowth of society and the State is made to curb the excesses of individuals so as to protect the polity and civil society.

As individuals both Pvt. William Long and Stephen Tyrone Johns had the right to defend themselves, but both were killed by cowards: Pvt. Long in what is essentially a 'drive-by' shooting, and Mr. Johns after showing an act of kindness to an elderly man.  Within the protective bosom of society neither Muhammad nor von Brunn had any expectation of immediate retribution and no fear that they would brought down for reverting to savagery while attacking those protecting society.  That is an essential part of liberty: to protect oneself and one's property against those who turn lawless and seek to use fear, coercion and killing to achieve their ends of depriving you of life or property.

These two killers step beyond the bounds of society.

No one in society, seeking to protect society, in any way condones these actions.

Nor should any excuses for their actions be brought forward, save that of total and utter derangement which does not appear to be the case with either of these men.

This cannot be pinned to those who support individual liberty, freedom and the Rights of Man as an Individual: the Traditionalist Right who uphold the government as a necessary evil so as to curb the excesses of individuals and stop their predation upon society.  Those are people who uphold civil law as paramount to leading a secure life and knowing that government, itself, is held in check by society.  Neither of these killers espoused that, and just the opposite, as both have beliefs and stated views that see government as the necessary dictatorial power over society to achieve their ends.

Collectivist mentality in politics only has one place, one home, today: those that seek to expand the role of government, diminish the liberty of the individual, and discriminate by group, class, economic status or any other thing.  Those are despotic ends, to have government do these things.  The home for them exists not on those who support the Rights of Man as an Individual, as they are absolutely and utterly contrary to those views.

The home of espousing the 'good' of separation, of division, of giving some preferences over others at the expense of society in the name of 'good' or 'fairness' is only done by those espousing the power of government over society.  They seek to excuse such killers or pin their position to those seeking to uphold civil rights and equality for all men, with preference towards none.  By trying to push such killers away, those doing so are unable to take the firm stand necessary against them as seeking more power for government to rule society is a matter of degree, not kind.  In the end the despotism sought by that cover is the same, just slightly different in form as some people become more equal than others.

They just argue about who is at the top of the heap.

All of them wish to bring back the yoke of tyranny and despotism.

Be warned the sweet and soothing words of 'fairness' and 'good' from government: it coats the poison of totalitarian views, where you are just a set of tags easily discriminated against by government.  Thus making you into a subject, not a citizen.

24 February 2009

Political Lexicon: early 2009 edition

Ah, a new President and a new vocabulary comes into play. For those of you not catching on to the Newspeak I'll do a bit of quick translation between the new word or phrase and its older meaning. It really is quite simple, once you listen for a bit! So, without further preface lets dive right in:

Accountability = Previously, oversight so as to hold institutions to account for funds and activities. New meaning is placing corrupt politicians at the head of institutions so as to ensure that political payoffs go directly to those favored by the Administration. Usage: 'I will make 'Accountability' of federal departments my top priority.'

Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) = Ancient, the idea that humans putting another log on the fire during the Little Ice Age helped to keep a real Ice Age from forming. Previously a misunderstood concept of the dynamics between atmosphere, solar radiation, insolation, albedo, and gaseous chemical compounds on a planetary scale. Currently, a religion that puts man at the center of all things bad happening on Rock 3 from the Star Sol, and aims to eliminate humans via 'Regulation', 'Accountability' and 'Oversight' with the help of 'Social Activism'. Soon to be an extortion phrase used against government, private institutions and individuals to make them conform with the religious beliefs of its adherents. Usage: ''AGW' is a threat to all of humanity and we must do something to stop this global phenomena.'

Bailout (or bail out) = Previously, jumping from a plane at high altitude with a parachute as a means of descending safely to the ground, originally used to imply the aircraft was headed for an uncontrolled ground vector. Currently, handing money out to institutions that had much 'Regulation' and 'Oversight' and are now being made 'Accountable', to the point where the amount being given is more than the cost of the institution itself. Usage: 'We will have to bail out GM and Chrysler and add more 'Regulation', 'Accountability' and 'Oversight' to them so they succeed.'

Carbon Dioxide = Previously a chemical compound that is utilized in the biosphere and naturally occurring, with some current uses of fuels producing it as a byproduct. Currently a pollutant that can be 'Regulated' due to worries about 'Anthropomorphic Global Warming'. Usage: 'The EPA will 'Regulate' the amount of carbon dioxide you can emit by breathing, with a special tax for hyperventilation.'

Crisis = Previously on the domestic side, anything that one could drag their feet on and have worked out by the time a solution full of 'Regulations', 'Accountability' and 'Oversight' was drafted. Currently a rhetorical means to coerce people to give up their money, liberty and freedom for fleeting problems. Usage: 'This 'crisis' requires the largest change in the government of the United States, ever.'

Deadbeat = Ancient, one who does not keep up with paying off their debts or defaults on them. Previously in the credit card industry, anyone who paid off their balances in full and on time so as to incur not interest charges. Currently, an American Taxpayer. Usage: 'We have to get those 'deadbeats' to pay out by new 'Regulations' and 'Oversight' with the help of 'Social Activism' to give money to those who took out larger amounts than they can pay off.'

Depression = Previously economic for a long term Recession. Currently it is any Recession. Generally talked about for years before it arrives so its presaged arrival seems much worse than it really is. Usage: 'We are headed into a Depression.'

Fascism = Ancient, meaning an authoritarian government instituting National Socialism so as to control banking and private industry while allowing for individuals to have some private property. Also an early form of Transnational Progressivism. Currently, a catch-all by the Left to impugn anyone they disagree with based on firm 'Political Convictions'. Usage: 'Those right-wingers wanting to remove 'Regulation' of the banking sector are a bunch of 'Fascists'.'

Great Depression = Older meaning - the financial downturn starting in 1928 that neared recovery in 1937 until government taxes and programs kicked in to prolong it to 1942. Currently, a 'Depression' that is widely predicted during other Recessions, and will be as bad or worse than the 1979-83 Recession. Usage: 'This 'Depression' will turn into the 'Great Depression' if cardigan sweaters go on sale.'

Greatest Mistake in US History = Ancient, the Civil War. Previously, creating a Progressive government that was able to tax 'deadbeats' to pay for those who lacked means to become stable citizens. After that a term used by the Left to denote the Viet Nam conflict. Just after term is used by the Left to denote the election of Ronald Reagan. Just after that the term is used by the Left to denote the election of 2000. Just prior to the election, the Iraq War by many on the political Left. Currently, trusting the federal government to do anything right and spend more money than was spent on the just prior usage of this term by the Left. Apparently whatever today's problem is, is the 'Greatest Mistake in US history' to the Left. Usage: ''The Greatest Mistake in US History' is to believe in the omnicompetence of government to get us through the current 'Depression'.'

Hope & Change = Previously a political slogan (cf. Hot Air). Currently being wiped from the MSM in attempt to have people forget that those we elect provide more the of same old, same old. Usage: 'I will use 'Hope & Change' to guide my 'Political Convictions' and know that I am right, even when things work out in ways that I don't expect.'

Indulgences = Ancient, the practice of paying money to the Roman Catholic Church to get time off in purgatory in the after-life. Current, purchasing carbon credits to reduce one's carbon footprint so that one feels better about all the pollution they do. Usage: 'Soon we will be purchasing 'indulgences' from the federal government due to 'regulations' on 'carbon dioxide' so that we may breathe without undue taxation involved.'

New, New Deal = Previously a social compact to drain money from the rich and industries to give to the poor while enriching 'Regulators' and those performing 'Oversight'. Currently, something twice the size of the old New Deal and that by a minimal factor of two if not larger. Usage: 'To avoid the next 'Great Depression' we need a 'New, New Deal' to prolong it!'

Oversight = Previously a term used to demand 'Accountability' by having 'Regulators' called before Congressional panels. Currently, a witch hunt to browbeat individuals to conform to political dictates of the members of Congress. Usage: 'Barney Frank performed an 'Oversight' function on federal regulators of the banking system in 2003-04 when they complained of the unsound fiscal policy embodied in 'Regulations'.'

Political Convictions = Previously a firm set of ideological work that was the underpinning of one's understanding of the role of government, the citizenry and the Republic. Currently it is The End Justifies The Means for those elected to high office. Usage: 'My 'political convictions' are firm and will always have the right process in mind to achieve them.'

Regulation = Previously the act of ensuring that certain criteria of financial standards, product safety and other items of interstate trade held to federally set norms. Currently, the utilization of corrupt politicians to create laws to place money into the hands of lobbyists to write bills that regulate their industry. Also, economically, the call for more of the previous so as to enact transfer payments to individuals with No Income No Job or Assets via the banking system via Congressionally passed law, so as to meet a political end. Usage: 'The financial system is corrupt and needs more 'Regulation'.'

Regulators = Previously those individuals who had oversight duties on federally mandated regulations and their enactment. Currently, corrupt political cronies put in charge of oversight so as to avoid 'Oversight' by conforming to political beliefs of the Congress or Administration or Both. Generally, those who utilize no sound standards of judgment and kowtow to political goals and aims while in a position of 'Oversight'. Usage: 'We will have the smartest 'Regulators' ever in the history of the United States.'

Social Activism = Previously and Current - Using thuggish means to extort money from politicians, banks, industries or any other viable institution in a poor region so as to 'help the poor' by making private institutions flee the area. Usage: 'That was not a riot with looters, but productive 'Social Activism'.

Socialism = Ancient, a system where everyone owns everything and all are beholden to a central government. Also an early form of Transnational Progressivism. Currently, the advocacy of National control over the banking sector and private industry. See: Fascism, ancient. Usage: 'The banks need to be Nationalized so that they don't fail so that we can have a more 'Socialist' economy.'

Sound fiscal practices = Ancient, to utilize means testing in the area of banking to ensure that borrowers are fiscally able to carry loans or are generally credit worthy. Previously handing out loans to NINJA borrowers due to 'Regulation' and 'Oversight' plus 'Social Activism' used against them. Currently this term has no meaning at all and is a null phrase that is chucked out at whimsy by those promoting schemes of any sort. Usage: 'It is 'sound fiscal practice' to hand out money to those who cannot pay it back and we must give them a 'bail out'.'

We need unity = Previously used as a political stump speech concept for 'Hope & Change'. Also a thing disdained by those who put dissent as the highest form of patriotism while the Nation was fighting a Congressionally sanctioned set of wars overseas. Currently, those who held dissent as the highest form of patriotism now wanting others to conform to their political beliefs. Usage: 'In this country 'we need unity' to confront the banking crisis so as to get 'deadbeats' to pay for those who took out larger loans than they could afford.'

Even though the lexicon is evolving very quickly, the general outlines can be seen with a number of phrases now taking on exactly opposite meanings than they have previously had. In no time at all you can just hear the phrase, substitute in its exact opposite meaning and be properly oriented for our modern times.

With the removal of some words and vowels, we will soon move to the very Progressive form of speech known as 'Duckspeak' and be done with meaning completely.

06 December 2008

Reminding about Repentance

The Moderate Voice believes that some of those 'haters' of Bill Ayers just will never be satisfied. Somehow there is this concept that Bill Ayers' Op-Ed at the NYT offers evidence of his repentance. Unfortunately repentance requires a bit more than saying you were wrong or sorry about one's misdeeds. That is the very modern idea of blowing people up and saying you are sorry... that doesn't really go anywhere, now, does it?

Since some folks like those at The Moderate Voice don't seem to get past the modern idea of repentance, they probably need just a bit of a clue on the older, and more thorough form that most of us, out here in the actual physical world require. Let's try this on from the Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Repentance \Re*pent"ance\ (r[-e]*p[e^]nt"ans), n. [F. repentance.] The act of repenting, or the state of being penitent; sorrow for what one has done or omitted to do; especially, contrition for sin. --Chaucer.

Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation. --2. Cor. vii. 20.

Repentance is a change of mind, or a conversion from sin to God. --Hammond.

Repentance is the relinquishment of any practice from the conviction that it has offended God. Sorrow, fear, and anxiety are properly not parts, but adjuncts, of repentance; yet they are too closely connected with it to be easily separated. --Rambler.

Syn: Contrition; regret; penitence; contriteness; compunction. See Contrition.

There it is - to be repentant one must be penitent, must express sorrow for what one has done, and show contrition. But that isn't the end of repentance, now, is it? It requires a bit more than just those things, particularly when going beyond a sin against god, but the destruction of one's fellow man.

Bill Ayers, himself, has said 'guilty as sin, free as a bird' about what he and others had done, so perhaps this bit from the Devil's Dictionary (1911) is what he is getting at:

REPENTANCE, n. The faithful attendant and follower of Punishment. It is usually manifest in a degree of reformation that is not inconsistent with continuity of sin.

Desirous to avoid the pains of Hell,

You will repent and join the Church, Parnell?

How needless! -- Nick will keep you off the coals

And add you to the woes of other souls.

Jomater Abemy

Hmmmm... nope, no punishment has been levied upon Bill Ayers. And I don't see him running to any church to absolve him of his sins as Bill Ayers recognizes no higher authority than himself to sit in judgment of his works. So that gets scratched.

Thus we go 'old school' on repentance, to get the feel for what it consists of so as to demonstrate it. For this we go to Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary to see just what repentance is all about:

Repentance

There are three Greek words used in the New Testament to denote repentance. (1.) The verb _metamelomai_ is used of a change of mind, such as to produce regret or even remorse on account of sin, but not necessarily a change of heart. This word is used with reference to the repentance of Judas (Matt. 27:3).

(2.) Metanoeo, meaning to change one's mind and purpose, as the result of after knowledge. This verb, with (3) the cognate noun _metanoia_, is used of true repentance, a change of mind and purpose and life, to which remission of sin is promised.

Evangelical repentance consists of (1) a true sense of one's own guilt and sinfulness; (2) an apprehension of God's mercy in Christ; (3) an actual hatred of sin (Ps. 119:128; Job 42:5, 6; 2 Cor. 7:10) and turning from it to God; and (4) a persistent endeavour after a holy life in a walking with God in the way of his commandments.

The true penitent is conscious of guilt (Ps. 51:4, 9), of pollution (51:5, 7, 10), and of helplessness (51:11; 109:21,22). Thus he apprehends himself to be just what God has always seen him to be and declares him to be. But repentance comprehends not only such a sense of sin, but also an apprehension of mercy, without which there can be no true repentance (Ps. 51:1; 130:4).

My thanks to die.net for collecting these!

You see, our modern version is the change of mind one, although a change of heart is not necessary. Note that it is used in reference to Judas, that he may repent of the sin but it is only the action not the intent of it that he repents of. That describes Bill Ayers.

Judas.

Yup.

He has not undergone a full change of mind and purpose, so as to demonstrate his knowledge of what he has done as truly evil, and to cast it from himself. Bill Ayers has not done that and so his actual understanding of what it means to repent is in doubt. Further he does not go on to cast that sin from himself forevermore, so as to promise to never betray his fellow man like that again. He has undergone no change in heart. Nor does Bill Ayers cast himself before us to seek mercy and forgiveness... quite the contrary with 'guilty as sin, free as a bird'.

These later acts describe 'contrition' in those actions and seeking to make amends for them, even though he can never fully do so as he has escaped secular justice and seems unaware of any other form of it. His conscience does not come forward to cause him sorrow and contrition in his actions nor to foreswear them. He, instead, seeks excuses and to say that there were reasons to do the unreasonable.

For Bill Ayers to be repentant he must seek atonement for his crimes. As Joseph Campbell points out, that word breaks out into its own form to tell what one must do: atonement - At Onement.

Contrition can only be done and shown to those surviving families of those he has helped to kill and injure and make amends. He places himself at the mercy of their judgment and seeks no excuses for what he has done as he would recognize that they were unreasonable acts against his fellow man and civil society. He would accept their judgment, no matter how cruel, as JUST and RIGHT for they are the ones he has directly wronged and he would never seek the excuse of never, personally killing individuals as the group he fostered trained in Cuba to kill and kill they did.

That is repentance.

Far more than saying 'I'm sorry'.

It is understanding that you have done wrong and recognizing it.

In that recognition you cast that from yourself and foreswear to ever do those things again.

You then change your purpose in life to repair the damage you have done.

You show contrition for your actions.

And you seek to put yourself at the mercy of those you have wronged for their judgment so as to atone for those acts and balance the scales of your life for those who you have harmed are have caused harm to be brought to them.

Bill Ayers has not done these latter things.

He only repents as Judas did.

And that fits.

09 August 2007

Definitions, outlook and terrorism - no need for new words here!

Over the past few weeks there have been a few postings on the concept of trying to deny al Qaeda the 'semantic' war footing of allowing them to self-define and, instead, try to use 'proper Islamic terms' to define them. Wordsmith at Flopping Aces has been one of those, and now I get a relayed question from Shrinkwrapped on the General James Mattis article on attacking al Qaeda on this front with his follow-on to the James E. Killcullen view on this previously.

So, when asked for my general opinion, I will often give the pre-requisite Free Dumb Look!


That done, onto this actual concept of trying to remove the semantic playing field from the enemy by developing a 'new lexicon' for defining things which have, unfortunately, age-old terms that work just fine. While I do enjoy the military lexicon's ever inventive methods to circumlocute around an activity, so that 'friendly fire' actually means 'we shot at our own folks by accident' and thus being unfriendly even though it comes from those that are friends, the idea that a brand new lexicon is necessary or even wanted to 'undermine the memes' of al Qaeda and their propagation is one that is quite dangerous. Why is that?

First and foremost, the United States defines things in terms that are common to the People, understood by the common man, and based on actions not intent. Mind you the concept of 'conspiracy' is an intentful activity which is seeking to bear a common intent and, when done for criminal ends, is prosecutable under law. Conspiracy, itself is, literally, to 'breath together'. Those that conspire in secret to do unlawful acts are performing a conspiracy, which is an act in, and of, itself. To define 'terrorism' we must define what the activity actually is, first and foremost, before we go looking for fine tuning our definitions. If we don't know what the hell we are talking about, then we will be unable to do any fine tuning that is actually meaningful.

Terrorism is a conspiracy to commit unlawful acts, in this case acts that would give grounds for going to war. That has a term to it, also: casus belli. "Cause for war". That is the activity in and of itself that if performed by a Nation State would also give clear justification for declaring war on that Nation State. In the case of non-Nation State actors, the actual activity itself is still a casus belli because it is an unwarranted attack upon the land, people or commerce of a Nation using warlike means. What terrorists do *not* have is: government, land in which they govern, recognizable uniforms, accountability via diplomacy, or any of the things that would make them a Nation State and, thusly, open for the Nation State declaration of war.

That leaves them as 'outlaws' who are, indeed, 'outside the law'. This is the one place where the 20th century has really worked a case of amnesia upon modern culture as this was not unknown in prior centuries. The terminology applied to those that conspired to become a law unto themselves is rampant with colorful terms, but the meaning of it is quite old, as given to us by the American Heritage Dictionary via Answer.com:
WORD HISTORY The word outlaw brings to mind the cattle rustlers and gunslingers of the Wild West, but it comes to us from a much earlier time, when guns were not yet invented but cattle stealing was. Outlaw can be traced back to the Old Norse word Å«tlagr, “outlawed, banished,” made up of Å«t, “out,” and lög, “law.” An Å«tlagi (derived from Å«tlagr) was someone outside the protection of the law. The Scandinavians, who invaded and settled in England during the 8th through the 11th century, gave us the Old English word Å«tlaga, which designated someone who because of criminal acts had to give up his property to the crown and could be killed without recrimination. The legal status of the outlaw became less severe over the course of the Middle Ages. However, the looser use of the word to designate criminals in general, which arose in Middle English, lives on in tales of the Wild West.
Italics in the original, bolding is mine. An outlaw is outside the protection of the law, and terrorists, by being unaccountable to any authority have put themselves outside of the Law of Nations and its protections. Being a law unto themselves and openly attacking and taking credit for attacks makes them something else and this will be taken from the Oxford University Press US Military Dictionary via Answer.com:
bandit
n. pl. bandits or banditti bænˈdiṭē 1. a robber or outlaw belonging to a gang and typically operating in an isolated or lawless area.

2. slang an enemy aircraft.

banditry n.
Note that a bandit can also be a plain outlaw belonging to a gang, typically operating in places like the caves of Northern Waziristan. Yes, those who are outlaws conspiring together are 'bandits'. Now a bit of insight into some of the trends of operation of 'terrorists' over the last decade or so. For this we will use the testimony given to the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, December 13, 2000 given by Ralf Mutschke, Assistant Director, Criminal Intelligence Directorate, International Criminal Police Organization - Interpol General Secretariat:
Structural links between political terrorism and traditional criminal activity, such as drugs trafficking, armed robbery or extortion have come increasingly to the attention of law enforcement authorities, security agencies and political decision makers. There is a fairly accepted view in the international community that in recent years, direct state sponsorship has declined, therefore terrorists increasingly have to resort to other means of financing, including criminal activities, in order to raise funds. These activities have traditionally been drug trafficking, extortion/collection of "revolutionary taxes", armed robbery, and kidnappings. The involvement of such groups as the PKK, LTTE, and GIA in these activities has been established.

I would like to draw the particular attention of the Committee to the Groupe Islamique Armé (GIA), considering the events of December last year. On 14 December 1999, Ahmed Ressam, was arrested near Port Angeles, Washington State, while trying to enter the United States from Canada. He was in possession of a timing device, explosive materials and false identification documents. Ahmed Ressam is known to have shared a Montreal (Canada) apartment with Said Atmani, a known document forger for the GIA. It has been established that before Ressam attempted to enter the US, he was in the company of Abdelmajid Dahoumane in Vancouver (Canada) for a 3 to 4 week period. An Interpol Red Notice was issued regarding the latter. The investigation has revealed links between terrorists of Algerian origin and a criminal network established in Montreal and specializing in the theft of portable computers and mobile telephones. The group in Montreal was in contact with individuals involved in terrorist support activity in France, and with several Moudjahidin groups who are active in Bosnia.

Subsequent to the arrest of Ressam, the Montreal police arrested twelve persons who were committing theft of valuable goods in cars in the Montreal downtown area. The proceeds of these criminal activities were sent to an international network with links to France, Belgium, Italy, Turkey, Australia and Bosnia.

The events in Canada and the United States should be seen in a wider perspective. Indeed, intelligence shows that several Algerian terrorist leaders were present at a meeting in Albania, which could also have been attended by Usama bin Laden, who was believed to be in Albania at that time. It was during this meeting that many structures and networks were established for propaganda and fund raising activities, and for providing Algerian armed groups with logistical support. The arrest at the Canada-US border in December 1999 may indicate that the Algerian terrorists are prepared to take their terrorism campaign to North America.

The GIA is a very active and deadly terrorist organization operating mainly in Algeria but which has also mounted several terrorist attacks in France, including the hijacking of an Air France jetliner in 1994 and a bombing campaign in 1995. Their aim is the overthrow of the Algerian Secular Government and its replacement with an Islamic state. They have developed large scale support and financing activities in Europe and other parts of the world. An analysis recently conducted at the Interpol General Secretariat has revealed GIA involvement in a number of criminal activities in several European countries. Although the information received is fragmented, it has been established that GIA support networks are involved in extortion, currency counterfeiting, fraud, and money laundering.

The above examples concern traditional terrorist groups with a well-defined political ideology who are only involved in organized crime on a secondary level. However, two of the main emerging threats today seem to emanate, on the one hand, from more hybrid groups who operate in highly unstable, often war-torn countries or regions, and, on the other hand, loose alliances and cooperation among different, already existing transnational criminal organizations. Albanian crime groups are highly representative of this trend.

[..]

Finally, Albanian criminal groups frequently engage in burglaries, armed robberies and car theft in Europe and the United States.

There might still be links between political/military Kosovar Albanian groups (especially the KLA) and Albanian organized crime. Of the almost 900 million DM which reached Kosovo between 1996 and 1999, half was thought to be illegal drug money. Legitimate fundraising activities for the Kosovo and the KLA could have been be used to launder drug money. In 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden. Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Djihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict. In 1998, the KLA was described as a key player in the drugs for arms business in 1998, "helping to transport 2 billion USD worth of drugs annually into Western Europe". The KLA and other Albanian groups seem to utilize a sophisticated network of accounts and companies to process funds. In 1998, Germany froze two bank accounts belonging to the "United Kosova" organization after it had been discovered that several hundred thousand dollars had been deposited into those accounts by a convicted Kosovar Albanian drug trafficker.

The possibility of an Albanian/Kosovar drugs for arms connection is confirmed by at least two affairs in 1999:
an Italian court in Brindisi (Italy) convicted an Albanian heroin trafficker who admitted obtaining weapons for the KLA from the Mafia in exchange for drugs.

An Albanian individual placed orders in the Czech Republic for light infantry weapons and rocket systems. According to Czech police sources, the arms were bound for the KLA.

Each KLA commander seems to have had funds at his disposal in order to be able to pay directly for weapons and ammunition for his local units’ need.
It is difficult to predict the further development of Albanian organized crime. Being a recent phenomenon, its stability is difficult to estimate. Nevertheless, future threats are realistic given the ruthlessness and lack of scruples displayed by Albanian crime groups, the international links which already exist, the professionalism which characterizes most of their activities and the strong ties created by ethnic Albanian origins. Moreover, the strong position of Albanian crime groups in Kosovo, F.Y.R.O.M. and the Albanian republic itself, is definitely a cause of concern to the international community, especially when one takes into account the geo-political instability in the region and the presence of a UN peacekeeping force.
There is much more from the testimony, including the indications of FARC activity working with Islamic groups in the Tri-Border Area of South America, but the basic linkages between these organizations shows that the concept of illegal activities to pay for banditry is ALSO a part of 'terrorism'. This does help to show that the trend of terrorism is away from the State sponsored sort of the old fashioned Hezbollah in Lebanon, and more to the al Qaeda 'blended mode' of crime and terror mixed together as seen by al Qaeda (and its affiliates), Hamas, Hezbollah - Chechnya, Bosnia, Tri-Border Area, FARC, Shining Path, and various other groups too numerous to be named.

Terrorists are bandits.
Terrorists are international outlaws.
Terrorists commit acts of war as a law unto themselves.

My, this isn't leading into the 'new lexicon' at all, now, is it? This 'defining groups by the activities they commit' is really moving away from terrorists and into an international brigandage situation... oh! That does bring up brigands and we must get some idea of that little word, too, and this time I will use the die.net look-up for this, which gets us the 1913 Webster's Dictionary, so we can have something before WWI to help us understand what we are seeing today:
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Brigand \Brig"and\ (br[i^]g"and), n. [F. brigand, OF. brigant
light-armed soldier, fr. LL. brigans light-armed soldier (cf.
It. brigante.) fr. brigare to strive, contend, fr. briga
quarrel; prob. of German origin, and akin to E. break; cf.
Goth. brikan to break, brakja strife. Cf. Brigue.]
1. A light-armed, irregular foot soldier. [Obs.]

2. A lawless fellow who lives by plunder; one of a band of
robbers; especially, one of a gang living in mountain
retreats; a highwayman; a freebooter.
There you go! Now far be it from me to say that living in the caves of Northern Waziristan, making war unaccountably and profiting by criminal activities of affiliated groups makes one a brigand! Or one of a band of robbers! I mean living in 'mountain retreats' and living off the bounty gained by ones confederates doesn't make one a terrorist, does it?

Oh! 'Confederates'! Well, back to die.net for this one, and their Word.net answer should do just fine:
Confederate
adj 1: of or having to do with the southern Confederacy during the
Civil War; "Confederate soldiers" [syn: Confederate]
2: united in a confederacy or league [syn: allied, confederative]
n 1: a supporter of the Confederate States of America [syn: Confederate]
2: someone who assists in a plot [syn: collaborator, henchman,
partner in crime]
3: a person who joins with another in carrying out some plan
(especially an unethical or illegal plan) [syn: accomplice]
v 1: form a group or unite; "The groups banded together" [syn: band
together]
2: form a confederation with; of nations
And you thought this was going to be *simple* didn't you? Just rustle up a few words from Islam, say that they mean something to undermine al Qaeda and Hezbollah and *miss* the entire problem of terrorism. Ah, if we go that route then we leave ourselves wide open to the others out there doing bad things. But by looking at what terrorists DO we define who they ARE without having to try and undermine their INTENT. Because what they DO is something that is an abomination to all Nations and all Peoples without having to get fancy about it.

Now we have a few other terms picked up on this jaunt and we really do have to see if they fit this 'terrorism' label, also. A simple 'highwayman', or individual or group of same with AK-47s to rob is pretty self-explanatory, really. But, 'freebooter'? Ooooo! I love the sound of that! So lets see if 'terrorists' are 'freebooters' also! So back to die.net and Webster's (although the temptation for the Devil's Dictionary is hard to pass up):
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Freebooter \Free"boot`er\, n. [D. vrijbuiter, fr. vrijbuiten to
plunder; vrij free + buit booty, akin to E. booty. See
Free, and Booty, and cf. Filibuster.]
One who plunders or pillages without the authority of
national warfare; a member of a predatory band; a pillager; a
buccaneer; a sea robber. --Bacon.
Hmmm... plunder, pillage and such without the authority of national warfare... predatory band... buccaneer... sea robber. Apparently not... but, wait! These go under the heading of Pirate! Anyone who has read anything on that topic here will now get some short and sweet of US Federal Code! Because, believe it or not, this *is* important. I have looked at this topic with these posts: When terrorists are Pirates, A deeper look at Terrorism and Piracy, and Why do we refuse to call terrorism what it is? Yes, a long look at that and so you will get the sweetened condensed version, and for the pure, raw stuff you will need to read those previous three posts.

Under 18 USC 1651 we get the first and broadest view of Piracy:
Sec. 1651. Piracy under law of nations

Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.
Blunt, direct, to the point. This is under the High Seas and commerce regularization power given to Congress for making law, and the Laws of the High Seas are for open an free transport across the waterways and being unassailed by outside organizations and Nations. When attacked on the High Seas without warrant or declaration of open warfare, or by groups not a part of any Nation, you can go to the Piracy laws to get relief via the US Admiralty courts. Yes, the Navy. As in: military law and justice. Suffice it to say I will point out one attack by al Qaeda that justifies this designation from this law alone: USS Cole bombing. Further, all of Hezbollah can be considered for its sinking of a merchantman vessel at sea last year. Any organization that attacks without warrant upon the High Seas is a Pirate.

Doesn't matter if they have a ship or not, either. The commission of the crimes against the High Seas Laws for freedom of navigation for commerce and of National military craft adhering to Treaty obligations makes them sacrosanct against unwarranted attack as they sail. If Pirates, in days of yore, had set up cannon in frequently passaged straights to sink ships (both merchant or war vessel) they would be considered to be Pirates. Probably brigands, too, come to that. And their 'confederates' would also be Pirates.

As the Laws of the High Seas were made before air navigation the Congress has amended the US Code in 49 USC 40120 to extend the Laws of the High Seas into overlaying airspace, with compensations for navigation due to the way things work and a bit of amending for underwater and underground to be part of this, also. Now, think of every, single aircraft hijacking outside the United States and its territories that involved any of the following: US Citizens, US Armed Forces personnel, aircraft owned in whole or in part by the US or its companies or its citizen's investments. We have a term for those that take over aircraft to reroute them for personal gain and notoriety: Pirates. The aim is to gain cash and media attention for their cause, when they just aren't destroying them or killing the folks on board. That act of 'air piracy' outside the United States is Piracy in the air, not 'air piracy' due to the extension of the High Seas Law. Now think of every terrorist organization and group that has done THAT in its history. We now can name them as Pirates. You may peruse the articles to see the extensiveness of Piracy laws to cover lawful US commerce overseas, its property and individuals employed in same. Because they are all covered. Along with Admiralty offices which, due to the USMC presence at Embassies, includes each and every US Embassy - attack an Embassy and you are a Pirate in addition to being a 'terrorist'.

My, this is getting pointed now, isn't it? No longer just trying to 'undermine memes' but calling attention to the activity, the law and the fact that it is military law that is being broken, not civil law. It is almost like we didn't want to pay any attention to this for a few decades and it came back to bite us with a few thousand dead on a bright September morn. And we still don't.

Looking to 'undermine memes' of Islamic Terrorist organizations is 'undermining memes' of our civilization by trying to fight our enemies on their semantic turf.

To hell with that!

I have plenty of things I can call 'terrorists' without even having to resort to specializing them by Islamic or narcotics or blended-mode mafioso: outlaw, bandits, brigands, and Pirates.

They are these on the international scale an old nemesis of civilization rising up in modern form, but its form is still of that same shape and outline that can be easily described by our ancestors. No need to import new words for old criminal concepts, in fact that undermines the very basis of what the Law of Nations is founded upon: set concepts that one transgresses at their peril.

And since we already have what should be done with them, we should be doing it.

Not trying to play sweet semantic games, but using the blunderbuss of ancient terms so that barbarians can be named and brought to heel. They wish to live and rule by the sword.

It is up to us to make sure they die by the sword.

Or we are worthless descendants of worthy forebearers, unwilling to name enemies and do what is right for ourselves, our Nation and our civilization.