Iraq bans Blackwater operations, all Blackwater personnel told leave immediately

[The Rabbi]

I'm not trying to make you feel guilty, Riley.  IMO, the treatment of the Indians could accurately be described as genocide and ethnic cleansing.  There was a deliberate effort to remove the people and eradicate their cultures.  How the various tribes got on with each other, and whether some even helped the colonists and US in destroying other tribes, is not germane.
If this doesn't sit well with how you understand US history, please explain to me where I am in error. 
Upthread a ways, this all got started because you were trying to make some kind of "America, love it or leave it!" statement, I believe.  That's rather simplistic and I've come to expect better of you.

Of course the terms genocide and ethnic cleansing were not invented until the last half of the 20th century, so calling it that is pretty anachronistic.
Judging past actions by present-day standards seems an exercise in futility.

[Len Budney]

But I reiterate my question: on what basis do you make the distinction between a killing in self-defense and murder?

I answered that question very precisely. If you missed it, I suggest you take another look.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

YES. Which is why I know your "social contract" is bunkum:  a "contract" is a voluntary agreement. I never signed this "social contract" of yours, yet you believe I should be forcibly bound by its terms.

Sorry Len.  The founding fathers looked for you, but you just couldn't be found.  They had to struggle through without you.

Ponder that carefully, and you'll understand the issue: they can no more make a contract that binds the unborn than you can make contracts for your great-grandchildren.

.except one: the standard that says, "Whatever the US does is legal, because the US defines 'legal'--even when it breaks its own laws." Which brings us back to an earlier unanswered question: if the US defines what is "legal," then it would be perfectly legal for the US to launch a genocide if it so chose.

Why don't you just move to Canada, or better yet, Europe.  You'll be much happier there with the rest of the America haters.  If you think the United States would 'launch a genocide', you're obviously not one of us.

You are attacking the arguer, not the argument. As such, your cracks are duly ignored.

Note, however, that the US has consigned Japanese-Americans to concentration camps, slaughtered most (but not all) of the Amerindians and stolen their land, and enslaved fellow humans. Our track record is much better than Russia's, or Germany's, or Cambodia's, but our hands are not sufficiently clean to sneer. Nor can you complain that those things are all "ancient history"; in this decade in this millennium, we are responsible for between 60K and 1,000K deaths (counts vary tremendously), and over 2,000K refugees, in an undeclared war waged against a "sovereign nation" that neither had anything to do with 9/11 nor had any "weapons of mass destruction."

--Len.

[Len Budney]

I think you well know I won't withhold criticism of certain politicians who happen to hold temporary office in my country's government.  I will not, however, panoptically condemn my country for any past transgressions.  The United States of America has more than redeemed itself.

Heh. I'm sure that's very comforting to the 500K Iraqis who died during the "oil for food" years, or the Okinawans who've suffered since WWII, or the Kurds slaughtered because they trusted Bush I's promises, or the millions of "internal refugees" in Iraq today, or the families of the dead (that we can't begin to estimate, because Bush II "doesn't do body counts").

McRiley says we've redeemed ourselves! All is forgiven! Hallelujah! Suck that, dead Iraqis! 

This country has shed more blood for other people's freedom,  given more of its wealth in hope of other people's survival, and opened its arms to more refugees and oppressed people than any other country or people in the history of the world. 

It's true that Americans are generous-spirited. They are willing to give. But government interventions, both monetary and military, have hardly been "for other people's freedom." Apart from the two world wars, which are sacred and may not be criticized, no other American conflict can plausibly be portrayed as altruistic. 1812? The Spanish-American war? Korea? Vietnam? Mogadishu? Kosovo?

You don't have to scratch me very deep to find red white and blue.  I'm an American and proud of it and grateful for it.

I love what the founders envisioned. But not what it has become. A real American patriot would be caching cannon and powder at Lexington right now.

--Len.

[The Rabbi]

But I reiterate my question: on what basis do you make the distinction between a killing in self-defense and murder?

I answered that question very precisely. If you missed it, I suggest you take another look.

--Len.

No, you answered what factors distinguished them.  I am asking what makes those factors valid.

[Len Budney]

But I reiterate my question: on what basis do you make the distinction between a killing in self-defense and murder?

I answered that question very precisely. If you missed it, I suggest you take another look.

No, you answered what factors distinguished them.  I am asking what makes those factors valid.

I'm not sure what you're looking for: I'm not going to say that their validity flows from their legality, at any rate. It's simple. The initiation of aggression against another is always immoral, and the use of force to repel aggression is always moral. That's a principle to which the law must be subordinate, in the sense that laws allowing or encouraging the initiation of force are inherently immoral, and laws forbidding defense against aggression are likewise inherently immoral.

Perhaps your intention is next to debate the philosophy of law, in order to "prove" that no moral principle can be "proven," and hence that moral relativism is the only viable alternative. If so I can save you a bit of time. Nonaggression is not an affirmative right; it's not something I "have," and therefore I need not prove that I "have" it. Rather, nonaggression is a negative right. It's not that I have a "right" not to be aggressed against; rather, it's that you have no right to do anything to me against my will. If you wish to attack or coerce me in some way, the burden is on you to prove that you have a right to do so. You will fail, leaving nonaggression as the only viable alternative.

If you choose to initiate aggression against me, I will defend myself. In that case, my action is consistent with both your and my principles! By my principles, you have no right to aggress against me, and I'm dealing with your immoral behavior. By your principles, apparently aggression is OK, so you can't complain when I use aggression against you.

If you paid attention, I just gave two arguments for non-aggression: the utilitarian argument, that I will act to repel your aggression; and a purely logical argument. In addition, nonaggression satisfies the universality principle: it's a moral principle which can always be applied equally to everyone. I.e., it doesn't divide humanity into two classes, the predators and the prey.

--Len.


Apropos, for your reading pleasure: The Cultural Contradictions of Statism

[The Rabbi]

No, Len.
The only reason that self-defense is an affirmative defense to murder is because that is how English Common Law (largely adopted here) defines it.  In other legal systems there is no such right.
It is not obvious.  It is not moral.  It is based on English Common Law and thus the law of the land here.
That same English Common Law also distinguishes between a taking by the state (eminent domain) and by an individual (theft).  It also distinguishes between levy by a state and enslavement by an individual.

You cannot say "I like this part of common law and think it is a 'natural right' but I dont like those parts of common law."  That is inconsistent.
So if you think that there is a right to self defense then you must also admit a power of the state under draft and eminent domain.  They are inseparable.
QED.
Thanks for playing Len.

[Len Budney]

The only reason that self-defense is an affirmative defense to murder is because that is how English Common Law (largely adopted here) defines it.  In other legal systems there is no such right.

Irrelevant. By your reasoning, a "legal system" that endorses killing Jews is on an equal moral footing with one that provides equal protection. I'd say it's confirmed that you're taking the position of moral relativism--which is funny, because there's a perfect refutation of relativism in Rabbinical tradition.

In any case, it looks like we're getting nowhere. I find your graphic rather disgusting. Have a nice day.

--Len.

[roo_ster]

Genocidal Injuns
So sorry, but the vast majority of Indians most likely died of disease, not by gunfire or bayonet. 

I'm sure some colonists & early Americans wanted the Indians gone.  They did not have the ability, by force of arms, to do so.  Mother Nature, OTOH, came up with an 80% solution on her own.

Illegally Comatose?
I wonder, were all the folks who claim the war in Iraq "illegal" in a coma for a few years?

I distinctly recall Congress authorizing action by majority votes very similar to other Congressional authorizations going back to the Founding Fathers.  Some had "Declaration of War" at the top of the bill, others had different wording amounting to killing the enemy and breaking his stuff.

I mean, if someone is going to cite Thomas Jefferson's writings to support one's position (appeal to authority, anyone?) on governmental authority, how much more substantial would it be to cite TJ's actions while POTUS exercising that authority?



Abridged List of American Wars
How many of the wars following the Am Rev had formal declarations of war containing the words, "Declaration of War?"

    Colonial Wars -A series of wars involving the colonizing European powers of England, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden in North America and the Caribbean.

        King William's War, (1689-1697)-Known in Europe as the War of the League of Augsburg AND as the War of the Grand Alliance and in North America as King William's War.

        Queen Anne's War, (1702-1712)-Known in Europe as the War of the Spanish Succession, in North America as Queen Anne's War and in India as the First Carnatic War. This conflict also included the Second Abnaki War. The Abnaki Indian tribe allied itself with the French against the English colonists in North America.

        The War of Jenkins' Ear, (1739-1743)-Fought between Britain and Spain.

        King George's War, (1744-1748)-Known in Europe as the War of the Austrian Succession and in North America as King George's War.

        French and Indian War, (1755-1763)-Known in Europe as the Seven Years' War and in North America as the French and Indian War. France forever lost possession of Quebec/Canada. In many ways, England's victory set the stage for the American Revolution.

    Colonial Indian Wars (1609-1775)-A series of wars involving the colonizing European powers of England, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden and their colonists against the native tribes of North America.

    American Revolution (1775-1783)- Also involved France, Spain and the Netherlands against Britain. The first Anglo-American War.

    Indian Wars (1775-1890)-A series of wars involving the United States government and her migrating settlers with the native tribes of what became the continental United States.

    Shay's Rebellion (1786-1787)

    The Whiskey Rebellion (1794)

    Quasi-War with France (1798-1800)

    Fries's Rebellion "The Hot Water War" (1799)

    U.S. Slave Rebellions (1800-1865)

    Barbary Wars

        Tripolitanian War (1800-1805)

        Algerine War (1815)

    War of 1812 (1812-1814)-The second Anglo-American War.

    Invasion of Spanish Florida (1819)-Andrew Jackson seized Florida from Spain.

    U.S.-Mexican War (1846-1847)-The United States invaded Mexico and forced the Mexicans to cede the northern half of the country and also to give up any claim to Texas.

    Kansas Civil War "Bleeding Kansas" (1855-1860)-Guerilla warfare between pro and anti slavery forces.

    Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry (1859)-Anti-slavery militant John Brown's attempt to jump start a slave rebellion.

    Civil War (1861-1865)

    U.S. Intervention in Hawaiian Revolution (1893)

    Spanish-American War (1898)

    U.S. Intervention in Samoan Civil War (1898-1899) with U.S. and British Naval Bombardment of Samoa --A resumption of past civil wars in which Samoan chief Mataafa seized power following the death of his rival, King Malietoa Laupepa, who had defeated him in the last Samoan Civil War (1893-1894). Fighting ensued, which was complicated by the long-standing rivalry between the U.S., Britain and Germany for de facto control over the Samoan Islands. On March 15, 1899, warships of the American and British Navies bombarded the Samoan city of Apia to intimidate the reigning Samoan king, who was allied with the Germans. An Anglo-American landing force took control of Apia, but were not able to pacify the interior. All sides agreed to cease fighting on May 13, 1899. Later that year, the three Western nations signed a treaty dividing Samoa between them. This whole conflict was part of a wider Samoan civil war.

    Philippine-American War (1899-1902)

    Boxer Rebellion (1900)-Also involved Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, Italy, Austria-Hungary against "Boxer" rebels in China as well as the Chinese government.

    The Moro Wars (1901-1913)-Guerilla warfare against U.S. forces by the Moro Muslims of the southern Philippines. Can be seen as a continuation of the Philippine-American War.

    U.S. Intervention in Panamanian Revolution (1903)-The U.S. landed troops in Panama to prevent Columbia from crushing the separatist Panamanian government.

    The Banana Wars (1909-1933)-A series of U.S. interventions in various Central American and Caribbean countries.

    U.S. Occupation of Vera Cruz (1914)-The U.S. landed troops in Vera Cruz, Mexico.

    Pershing's Raid into Mexico (1916-1917)-After Mexican rebel Pancho Villa attacked a U.S. town, General Pershing pursued him across the border.

    World War I (1917-1918)

    Allied Intervention in Russian Civil War (1919-1921)-Also involved Britain, France, Japan, Italy, Poland and the Czech Legion against the new Bolshevik (Soviet Communist) government in Russia.

    World War II (1941-1945)

    The Cold War (1945-1991)

    Korean War (1950-1953)-Also involved Britain, France, Turkey, and others against North Korea and China.

    Intervention in Lebanon (1958)

    Second Indochina War (1956-1975)

        Vietnam War (1964-1973)--The "advisory" phase of U.S. involvement goes from 1956 to 1964, and then resumes from 1973 to 1975. The years 1964 to 1973 refer to the period of "official" combat deployment of U.S. forces in the war.

        Cambodian Civil War (1970-1975)

        Laotian Civil War (1960?-1975)

    Dominican Intervention (1965-1966?)

    Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979-1980)

    Lebanese Intervention (1982-1984)

    Grenada Invasion (1983)

    First Persian Gulf War (1980-1988)-The U.S. gave logistical and intelligence information to Iraq in its war against Iran.

        "Tanker War" (1987-1988)-The U.S. provided naval protection for Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. This led to multiple clashes with the Iranian military.

    Panama Invasion (1989)

    Second Persian Gulf War (1991)

    No-Fly Zone War (1991-2003)

    Somalia Intervention (1992-1993)

    Occupation of Haiti (1994-Present)

    Bosnian War (1995)-The U.S. and NATO engaged in air strikes to force the Bosnian Serb forces to negotiate a peace agreement. Also known as Operation Deliberate Force. U.S. airpower contributed 65.9% of the NATO air sorties.

    bin Laden's War (1998-Present) -Terrorist conflict between the United States and irregular forces led by Osama bin Laden. The violence has also involved Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan and Afghanistan.

    Kosovo War (1999) --Links Page

    The War in Afghanistan (2001-Present)

    The Third Persian Gulf War : "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (2003)--The second major war between the United States-led coalition and the Middle Eastern nation of Iraq. Military members of the coalition also include the United Kingdom and Australia.

     Intervention in Haiti (2004)--Intervention to prevent civil war/anarchy in Haiti following the Gonsalves Rebellion against the Haitian government.

[The Rabbi]

JFruser,
You have to understand that to some people nothing will make this war OK.  So the try to delegitimate it by claiming it is "Illegal".  According to what code of law that is so, I have no idea.  The Congress declared it.  The U.N. had given sanction for it.  No court I am aware of ever issued a finding that it was illegal.  Certainly no court with any jurisdiction.  But there you have it.
So since the war is "illegal" it follows that our troops are engaging in illegal acts, like murder or terrorizing innocent Iraqis.  As for murder, 150,000 Iraqis have died as a result  Or is it 650,000?  Or is it 550,000?  When numbers have such disparity and the methods used to reach them so flawed, they have no validity at all. But lots of people died.  And that's bad, right??
So this puts the Libertarians firmly in the Jane Fonda Camp, accusing US servicemen of war time atrocities, basically giving aid and comfort.  I say we prosecute them for treason.

[longeyes]

News flash!

Blackwater has told the Iraqi government to leave Iraq immediately.

[Paddy]

YES. Which is why I know your "social contract" is bunkum:  a "contract" is a voluntary agreement. I never signed this "social contract" of yours, yet you believe I should be forcibly bound by its terms.

Sorry Len.  The founding fathers looked for you, but you just couldn't be found.  They had to struggle through without you.

Ponder that carefully, and you'll understand the issue: they can no more make a contract that binds the unborn than you can make contracts for your great-grandchildren.

Wrong.  It's done all the time, with language that 'binds successors, heirs and assigns'.  But beyond that, your argument is flawed. You're quite willing to accept and enjoy the freedom, wealth, security and all the other benefits handed down by our forefathers, while at the same time claiming you're not bound by the contract. Your actions are inconsistent with your claim. 

.except one: the standard that says, "Whatever the US does is legal, because the US defines 'legal'--even when it breaks its own laws." Which brings us back to an earlier unanswered question: if the US defines what is "legal," then it would be perfectly legal for the US to launch a genocide if it so chose.

Why don't you just move to Canada, or better yet, Europe.  You'll be much happier there with the rest of the America haters.  If you think the United States would 'launch a genocide', you're obviously not one of us.

You are attacking the arguer, not the argument. As such, your cracks are duly ignored.

Note, however, that the US has consigned Japanese-Americans to concentration camps, slaughtered most (but not all) of the Amerindians and stolen their land, and enslaved fellow humans. Our track record is much better than Russia's, or Germany's, or Cambodia's, but our hands are not sufficiently clean to sneer.

What action(s) can we take that would mitigate your guilt, Len?  Should we dig up FDR, Custer, et alia, put them on trial, then hang them?

 

Nor can you complain that those things are all "ancient history"; in this decade in this millennium, we are responsible for between 60K and 1,000K deaths (counts vary tremendously), and over 2,000K refugees, in an undeclared war waged against a "sovereign nation" that neither had anything to do with 9/11 nor had any "weapons of mass destruction."

Who is 'we'?  You just claimed you're not bound by any social contract, so how is it you include yourself?  More inconsistency.

[Len Budney]

You're quite willing to accept and enjoy the freedom, wealth, security and all the other benefits handed down by our forefathers, while at the same time claiming you're not bound by the contract. Your actions are inconsistent with your claim. 

Right: the government is the fountain from which all blessings flow. 

Who is 'we'?  You just claimed you're not bound by any social contract, so how is it you include yourself?  More inconsistency.

I'm using inclusive language to sound nice and friendly. It's true that I feel no responsibility to the crimes of the government, because I neither participated in nor condoned any of them. The case for "we" is somewhat ambiguous. I'm one of the American people; in that sense it's "we." But I'm not part of the American government, which is really committing the crimes, and in that sense "we" is no more applicable to me than it is to you. Less, because you condone it.

--Len.

[Paddy]

I think you well know I won't withhold criticism of certain politicians who happen to hold temporary office in my country's government.  I will not, however, panoptically condemn my country for any past transgressions.  The United States of America has more than redeemed itself.

Heh. I'm sure that's very comforting to the 500K Iraqis who died during the "oil for food" years, or the Okinawans who've suffered since WWII, or the Kurds slaughtered because they trusted Bush I's promises, or the millions of "internal refugees" in Iraq today, or the families of the dead (that we can't begin to estimate, because Bush II "doesn't do body counts").

McRiley says we've redeemed ourselves! All is forgiven! Hallelujah! Suck that, dead Iraqis! 

You seem obsessively focused on past events that no one can change.  You have yet to answer what would bring about justice or at least assuage your angst?

You're quite willing to accept and enjoy the freedom, wealth, security and all the other benefits handed down by our forefathers, while at the same time claiming you're not bound by the contract. Your actions are inconsistent with your claim.

Right: the government is the fountain from which all blessings flow.  rolleyes

No one is forcing you to live with the U.S. government.  You are free to leave anytime you want and go anywhere you want.  You are free to start your own country if you so desire.  In the meantime, your prostestations are not going to change anything here, and, quite frankly, your views are relegated to a small minority fringe. Apparently the arguments you present are not persuasive and compelling enough for the rest of us.

Thanks anyway. 

[Len Budney]

Suck that, dead Iraqis! 

You seem obsessively focused on past events that no one can change.

That's just silly. The killing of Iraqis is ongoing. Your definition of "past" apparently includes this morning's breakfast.

Right: the government is the fountain from which all blessings flow.  rolleyes

No one is forcing you to live with the U.S. government.  You are free to leave anytime you want...

I wondered when you'd get around to that. "You've agreed to live without habeas corpus when you decided not to flee the country." That's ridiculous, of course; it's as if I came on your property and then demanded that you either obey me or abandon your property and move.

Thanks anyway. 

No worries. Unlike you, I don't believe in coercion: I won't expel you from the country because you don't agree with me. I suggest you extend me the same courtesy: this being the "armed polite society," I am of course armed just as you are, and prepared to defend myself against aggression.

--Len.

[Joe Demko]

You seem obsessively focused on past events that no one can change.  

Cool! An all-purpose excuse!  Shakespeare phrased it a bit more prettily:

Things without all remedy
Should be without regard: whats done is done.

Of course, it was Lady Macbeth talking with her husband about his guilt over their murder of the king.

So, as long as it's in the past and can't be changed, we don't have to care!  Yay!

[Paddy]

That's just silly. The killing of Iraqis is ongoing. Your definition of "past" apparently includes this morning's breakfast.

There's a lot of ongoing killing in this world.  Why focus on Iraqis?

I wondered when you'd get around to that. "You've agreed to live without habeas corpus when you decided not to flee the country." That's ridiculous, of course; it's as if I came on your property and then demanded that you either obey me or abandon your property and move.

The hubris in that statement is mind boggling.  Are you actually asserting an individual claim to this country that predates your birth?  In any event, it's another attempted analogy. 'If this if that if the other thing yada yada'.  If any of your hypotheticals were based in reality they wouldn't be hypothetical, now would they?

No worries. Unlike you, I don't believe in coercion: I won't expel you from the country because you don't agree with me.

How does 'you're free to leave anytime' morph into forcible expulsion?

I suggest you extend me the same courtesy:

That makes no sense.  I do not have the power to either expel or detain you.
 

this being the "armed polite society," I am of course armed just as you are, and prepared to defend myself against aggression.

Good for you.  Your RKBA is another benefit of living in this country which you claim has no jurisdiction over you but you'll take the goodies anyway. 

[Paddy]

You seem obsessively focused on past events that no one can change. 

Cool! An all-purpose excuse!  Shakespeare phrased it a bit more prettily:

Things without all remedy
Should be without regard: whats done is done.

Of course, it was Lady Macbeth talking with her husband about his guilt over their murder of the king.

So, as long as it's in the past and can't be changed, we don't have to care!  Yay!

I'm donning sackcloth and ashes and preparing to do penance right now Joe.  I hope it helps ya.

[Gewehr98]

Good call, Riley! I'm heading to Ho-Chunk Casino this weekend and giving them more of my slot machine money, myself.   

[Joe Demko]

See, Riley, you are the one talking up the idea of the social contract.  That is, you are saying our forefather's WERE able to obligate us through their actions.  So just what gets passed to us from them and what does not?  The government of the US has done some reprehensible things.  The government of the US has been in continuous existence for a couple hundred years now.  Is the government an entity in its own right or is it no more than the people who held office at the time?  It does make a difference.

[Paddy]

Good call, Riley! I'm heading to Ho-Chunk Casino this weekend and giving them more of my slot machine money, myself.   

Good luck!  They rob me blind every time, except for the Wheel of Fortune machines.  But what the hey, I consider it penance for the sins of my fathers. 

[Len Budney]

That's just silly. The killing of Iraqis is ongoing. Your definition of "past" apparently includes this morning's breakfast.

There's a lot of ongoing killing in this world.  Why focus on Iraqis?

I think you just said, "Why pick on me? All the other kids are killing people too! Waah!" I focus on what the US is doing because there's more chance (slim, but more) that other Americans will agree, and something will actually be done about it. I could do the same for Burundi, but being neither a Hutu nor a Batutsi, they're even less likely to pay any attention than my fellow Americans.

No worries. Unlike you, I don't believe in coercion: I won't expel you from the country because you don't agree with me.

How does 'you're free to leave anytime' morph into forcible expulsion?

It's more like, "leave or kiss your habeas corpus goodbye!" Your invitation to leave carries an implied threat: that the injustices that take place in America, such as loss of habeas corpus, loss of fourth-amendment protection, etc., leave one no alternative than to leave, or shut up and like it.

Good for you.  Your RKBA is another benefit of living in this country which you claim has no jurisdiction over you but you'll take the goodies anyway. 

My rights are inalienable. The US didn't give them to me. Luckily for me, the US hasn't infringed those rights (too badly) (yet). All hail the powers that be! They haven't taken away (all of) my rights (yet)! Blessed we are!

The founders disagree sharply with you. They considered our rights inalienable. That's something that transcends government, and which, if a government infringes them, makes it moral to change or abolish it.

--Len.

[The Rabbi]

Good for you.  Your RKBA is another benefit of living in this country which you claim has no jurisdiction over you but you'll take the goodies anyway. 

My rights are inalienable. The US didn't give them to me. Luckily for me, the US hasn't infringed those rights (too badly) (yet). All hail the powers that be! They haven't taken away (all of) my rights (yet)! Blessed we are!

The founders disagree sharply with you. They considered our rights inalienable. That's something that transcends government, and which, if a government infringes them, makes it moral to change or abolish it.

--Len.

Your rights are, pace the Founders (again an appeal to authority, Len?) rights are not inalienable.  Rights are functions of society.  Whatever society generally deems to be a right, is.  You have no right to carry in NYC or Chicago.  If you do, you'll be arrested. When you go before the judge and claim a 2A right, he'll laugh in your face.  Appeal the decision, you won't get anywhere.  That doesn't sound like an inalienable right to me.

[Len Budney]

Your rights are, pace the Founders (again an appeal to authority, Len?) rights are not inalienable.

It's an appeal to authority, in case their authority impresses you: they did consider rights to be inalienable to all men. However, I would still consider rights inalienable if the colonies had lost the revolution, and the founding documents had never been penned.

Rights are functions of society.  Whatever society generally deems to be a right, is.

In particular, if society generally deems a "final solution to the Jewish question" to be right, it is. I'm afraid I disagree with you, Rabbi.

--Len.

[Paddy]

I think you just said, "Why pick on me? All the other kids are killing people too! Waah!" I focus on what the US is doing because there's more chance (slim, but more) that other Americans will agree, and something will actually be done about it. I could do the same for Burundi, but being neither a Hutu nor a Batutsi, they're even less likely to pay any attention than my fellow Americans.

  Oh, now it's 'my fellow Americans'. You're all over the board. Do even listen to what you're saying?
In any event, I'm not the one whining and crying about the horrible atrocities committed by this country. Nor am I handwringing and sniveling over infringement of my inalienable rights by this evil government.  It seems to me these views are extremely egocentric.  The world is not here to conform to your wishes, Len.  YOU are not the center of all creation.

The founders disagree sharply with you. They considered our rights inalienable. That's something that transcends government, and which, if a government infringes them, makes it moral to change or abolish it.

Well, get busy.  You won't get it done talking about it.  Go cache some powder at Lexington or something.