Americans Openly Talking About Benefits of Genocide, Illegal Warfare
It's an error to come to the defense of a government that has committed, and failed to prevent war crimes.
Update Reynolds challenged
There's been some talk that the Holocaust should "never happen again." Some lawyers appear to have twisted history around, and are talking about the benefits of Genocide. ( h/t )
Time to wake up America: The legal community which failed to protect the Constitution, is now openly hoping to mobilize American citizens to believe that we must "accept" that outcome. Someone in the American Bar Association needs to pay a visit to the TN Bar and find out about Reynolds. Ref
Very interesting when the legal community -- which recklessly failed to end illegal warfare -- changes the subject and says we have to support Genocide, or be open to the possibility that it is "unavoidable." What a load: If we had real leaders in the American legal community no one like Reynolds would be blindly talking about violence or that it is "inevitable." He'd be leading the charge to make sure it doesn't happen, regardless the excuse.
Arguably, this is recklessness by an attorney and should be reviewed for purposes of evaluating to what extent the American legal community has "resigned" itself to broader war crimes, and Genocide.
Remember Rwanda. There are American civilians, disturbingly in the legal community, who are openly talking about the benefits, necessity, and unavailability of genocide.
Not very impressive to learn of this flashback to Rwanda and the Holocaust. Do you think the lawyers in the German Reichstag's had the same "flashes of inspiration" when they openly talked about how "great" it would be to mobilize the citizenry to prepare them for Genocide.
It's a problem when the American legal community openly talks about the "benefits" of genocide. The American government, if it lets this talk continue, is going to have a problem on its hands: A Rwanda in the United States.
Dails on Reynolds
Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide -- unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians.
Tell you what American lawyers: You can take your "love of genocide" and go to The Hague and make your defense.
Claims that is "unavoidable" incorrectly suggests there is an imminent attack. What a load of non-sense.
The opposite is true: Despite the Sept 2001 attacks, and AUMF to into Afghanistan to attack, the US government and reckless legal community have assented to war rimes, taken their eye of the ball; and are clueless what to do about the enemy that is making gains in . . . [wait for it] Afghanistan.
Lawyer Inciting Violence
Here's one that fails to comprehend the reality of "civilians not carrying their weapons openly" -- they are unlawful combatants.
Lawyers who are not competent in the laws of war should stop giving legal advice to American civilians. Calling on Americans to take up arms, carry their weapons without complying with the laws of war means civilians would lose their civilian-status as a non-combatant.
The only solution is to prepare our citizenry to fight back. We are all soldiers now. Ref
No, the American legal community is on the legal defensive. Lawyers should fight their own legal defense, and not ask American civilians to come to the aid of the reckless buffoons in the American legal community. This is a war the American legal community, through their recklessness, has illegally permitted to expand beyond what is reasonable, lawful, or acceptable.
It was the lawyers' problem in illegally assenting to unlawful warfare; and inciting more violence through their reckless assent to unlawful warfare.
Had the American legal community exercised some leadership, they would not in 2007 calling on American citizens to take up arms. No, we are not "all" warriors; the American legal community is alleged war criminals.
The above quotes are stunning developments and very serious. Please elevate this in your discussions: There is a spreading problem in the American legal community which apparently is shifting the standards on whether violence is or isn't stoppable.
It's pathetic when the legal community can't lead; what's worse is, despite their apparent reckless disregard for the laws of war, they're inciting American citizens to carry weapons, give up their civilian status, and "accept" that Genocide is not stoppable.
This kind of talk is a fair warning that there are some loonies running around the American legal community who haven't quite woken up to the new reality: Genocide is never inevitable, only when the legal community gives up.
Kind of like what the legal "experts" did when they refused to enforce Geneva.
Excuse me, the DNC won the November 2006 election. Didn't' that mean the non-sense legal thinking was supposed to end?
No, it means that they're finding more legal non-sense to spew; rather than mobilize just government to assent to war crimes, the legal community -- having failed to keep its eye on Afghanistan and assented to illegal warfare in Iraq -- wants to inspire the civilian population to accent as inevitable the "requirement" to take up arms and accept Genocide in America.
America needs some adult leadership. This "acceptance that Genocide is inevitable" needs to see the light of day before the public.
The American fascism which led the nation into an illegal war is still creeping and asking civilians to do things it should not be asking them to do; and mentally prepare for things that leadership should be openly combat ting, not accepting as "inevitable."
let's get rid of this attitude of "genocide might be good" or "genocide might be inevitable." There needs to be a plan to make sure it's clearly understood: Genocide is bad, and it's not acceptable, especially from the legal community.
Heed the lesson of Iraq illegal warfare: Once the GOP legal community starts talking about the need to "accept" something, they've opened the door to make it reality.
___ Has the convoluted thinking "justifying" the illegal, diversionary attacks in Iraq -- away from Afghanistan -- expanded to "justify" new illegal genocide?
___ How many lawyers are privately telling their clients to take up arms?
___ Do civilians understand, once they take up arms, they lose their protected, civilian status under Geneva?
The problem with Abu Ghraib, Titan, and Guantanamo was that people who were not trained on the laws of war were thrust into positions where they were poorly led, did not know what was going on, or they failed to stop what they should have ended.
The last thing the American legal community -- especially buffoons like academics -- need to do is starting advising civilians to do things without giving them the legal tools to take fully responsibility for the consequences of that advocated call to arms.
IT is reckless for counsel to share this call to arms, especially when there is no credible discussion of the adverse consequences which civilians may suffer if they heed this call to arms without considering the full legal consequences of their actions.
This isn't saying "don't defend yourself" but the opposite: Make sure you understand what your actions really mean in terms of protections you think you're entitled to. The last thing I want to hear is, on the eve of a phony problem, for civilians to take up arms -- and in doing so -- they lost protections, and are them subsequently attacked by foreign fighters who are legally waging war against the US government.
Foreign fighters may conclude that US civilians, because they are not carrying their arms openly, are unlawful combatants, and subject to the same punishment the US illegally imposed on prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Eastern Europe: Abuse. Foreign fighters may legally inflict like abuse on combatants; when civilians take up arms, they lost their protections, but are subject to lawful retaliation which the US original inflicted in Eastern Europe, Guantanamo, Iraq, and other detention centers.
This information from the legal community is a very bad problem that does not appear to be self-regulating.
Think big picture: It's been going on six-years of the illegal activity, and the US legal community has yet to be held to account for the illegal warfare; nor has the DOJ Staff counsel been credibly issued a legal rebuke. It's as if the world is in this frozen state of mindlessness: Accepting that illegal warfare should be celebrated. All this moment, bad news, and voter rebuke: The moment continues.
Just when you think the DNC leadership and voter rebuke of Nov 2006 might be a turn of events for the better, the same legal community which hasn't self-regulated is now expanding the absurdity to directly [a] engage civilians; [b] induce them to take up arms to defend a government that is expanding illegal warfare; and is [c] spewing forth non-sense to suggest that genocide is on the way, nothing can be done, and we need to prepare for it.
This is reckless conduct by the American legal community and should send a fair warning to the European Union that the problem with law and order they saw with the illegal renditions has expanded. There's no telling what else the American lawyers are "justifying" in their mind by way of "what is inevitable."
It's this kind of talk which sends a clear signal to the Iranians, Russians, Chinese, and others: A military intervention is required to end this non-sense emanating from America. Even the civilians and lawyers are joining their government to expand, support, and strengthen not only illegal warfare, but blindly accept that illegal warfare and genocide are the best Americans can hope for.
Amazing how fascism, despite a so called defeat in November 2006, will take on a life of it's own.
American public needs to decide whether it wants to keep impeachment off the table. The lawyers don't care: They've got genocide, war crimes, and illegal warfare on the table, and are openly preparing the minds of American civilians to accept it as unavoidable.
But we can't talk about holding the President accountable . . . That's non-sense, especially when the questions come back in re Rwanda:
___ Who knew about the planning
___ Who was making statements that was inspiring civilians to do illegal things
___ Who was asking civilians to join the US government to expand illegal warfare
___ Did the lawyers and legal community act responsibly?
___ Did the American media appropriately learn and apply the lessons of Rwanda; or was it silent and complicity with the calls to "accept" Genocide?
Share this with your friends: A very bad sign of things taking a turn for the worse in America.