Posts Tagged ‘OSAMA BIN LADEN’
9/11, ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, BARACK OBAMA, BASHIR AL-ASSAD, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, DICK CHENEY, DONALD RUMSFELD, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, IRAQ, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, SADDAM HUSSEIN, SYRIA, TALIBAN, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 5, 2013 at 1:40 pm
A two-year civil war is raging in Syria.
United Nations officials estimate that 6,000 people have died there trying to overthrow the dictatorial regime of “President” Bashar al-Assad.
And that’s sending jitters through the Washington elite.
Not the casualties. The fact that they’re being shown in vivid color on YouTube and CNN.
And this, in turn, has led many members of Congress and the Obama administration to fear for their jobs. They dread that voters will blame them for not “doing something” to end the fighting.
Like sending in American armed forces to somehow stop it.
Another reason driving America’s headlong rush into war: Sheer stupidity.
Start with the neocons, who lustily supported the 2003 Iraq war have been spoiling for yet another war in the Middle East.
On March 21, 2013, House Foreign Affairs ranking Democrat Eliot Engel (D-NY) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced the “Free Syria Act of 2013,” calling on the Obama administration to arm the Syrian rebels.
And on May 27, Arizona U.S. Senator John McCain secretly entered Syria and met with commanders of the Free Syrian Army, who are fighting forces loyal to “President” Bashar al Assad for control of the country.
He was the first U.S. senator to travel to Syria since civil war erupted there in 2011. And after he left, he told CNN that he was more convinced that the United States must become more involved in the country’s conflict.
President Barack Obama could have easily confronted these “give war a chance” enthusiests and put them on the defensive–had he wished to do so.

President Obama at press conference
He could have bluntly and repreatedly used the bully pulpit of his office to warn Americans:
- Since 1979, Syria has been listed by the U.S. State Department as a sponsor of terrorism.
- There are no “good Syrians” for the United States to support. There is a civil war between rival terrorist groups.
- Among the terrorist groups supporting Syrian dictator al-Assad are Hezbollah and Hamas.
- Assad’s enemies include another terrorist group–Al Qaeda.
- Syria has never been an ally of the United States.
- It is, after Iran, the foremost enemy of America’s ally, Israel.
- The United States faces a crumbling infastructure, record high unemployment and trillions of dollars in debt. It’s time for Americans to clean up their own house before worrying about the messes in other nations–especially those wholly alien to American values.
And, most importantly, Obama could have directly challenged the macho ethic of the American Right.
Especially those members of it who, while avoiding military service themselves, are always eager to send others into harm’s way at the slightest excuse.
The President could have officially established an all-volunteer brigade for those Americans willing to fight and possibly die in yet another pointless war. And he could have offered to fly them to the border of Syria so they could carry out their self-appointed “conquer or die” mission.
Of course, many–if not most–of these armchair strategists would have refused to put their own lives on the line in defense of a “cause” they claim to believe in.
But then Obama could have brutally–and repeatedly–pointed this out. Hypocrisy is something Americans understand all too well–and despise.
Instead, for a man celebrated for his oratorical gifts, Obama has managed to talk himself into a no-win situation.
Theodore Roosevelt claimed to operate by a South African proverb: “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.”
Obama spoke loudly about the “big stick” of American military power and said that if Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against its enemies, that would be “a red line in the sand.”
By doing so, he needlessly put his credibility as President on the line.
On August 21, the Assad regime was accused of using chemical weapons in Damascus suburbs to kill more than 1,400 civilians.
On August 30, the Obama administration said it had “high confidence” that Syria’s government carried out the chemical weapons attack.
Having boxed himself in, Obama felt he had to make good on his threat–even if it risked the lives of those flying combat missions over Syria’s formidable air defenses.
Yet, even at this late stage, Obama could find a face-saving reason for not intervening. He could state that while there is apparent evidence of a chemical attack, there is no conclusive evidence that this was carried out by the Assad regime.
In short: He could shift the blame to one of the many terror groups operating in Syria–such as Hizbollah or Hammas or Al Qaeda.
This would take the United States off the hook–thus saving the lives of countless American soldiers and avoiding a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia.
But having needlessly put his own credibility–and ego–on the line, this is unlikely.
What’s more likely is Obama will continue to hurtle down the road to disaster.
9/11, ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, BARACK OBAMA, BASHIR AL-ASSAD, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, DICK CHENEY, DONALD RUMSFELD, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, IRAQ, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, SADDAM HUSSEIN, SYRIA, TALIBAN, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 4, 2013 at 12:00 pm
For the third time in 12 years, America is going to war in the Middle East.
The first war erupted in October, 2001. The United States invaded Afghanistan to avenge its 3,000 citizens killed by Al Qaeda in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania.
The September 11 attacks destroyed the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon, and would have demolished the White House or Capitol Building if the passengers on Flight 93 hadn’t heroically sacrificed their lives in trying to recapture the plane.
Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was being given sanctuary by the fundamentalist Taliban. When its leaders refused to hand him over, America struck.
That war definitely made sense. If a nation isn’t allowed to defend itself from brazen terroristic assaults, then there’s no point in having an armed service.
Even America’s bitterest enemies in the Islamic world realized that Bin Laden had gone too far and had brought upon himself–and Afghanistan–the justified wrath of a powerful enemy.
And the results: This October 7 will mark 12 years since the outbreak of that war. That’s as long as Franklin D. Roosevelt served as President–and he won World War II in less than four years.
Children who were born on September 11, 2001, have never known a time when their country wasn’t at war with Islamic enemies.

American soldiers–somewhere in the Middle East
By early 2012, the United States had about 90,000 troops in Afghanistan, with 22,000 of them due home by the fall. There has been no schedule set for the pace of the withdrawal of the 68,000 American troops who will remain, only that all are to be out by the end of 2014.
The initial goal of this war was to destroy Al Qaeda–especially its leader, Osama Bin Laden–and its Taliban protectors. But, over time, Washington policy-makers embarked on a “nation-building” effort.
So the American military didn’t wrap up its campaign as quickly as possible and then leave the country to its own devices. Instead, U.S. forces wound up occupying the country for the next ten years.
This increasingly brought them into conflict with primitive, xenophobic Afghans, whose mindset remains that of the sixth century.
A series of murderous attacks on American soldiers by their supposed Afghan comrades-in-arms led to the inevitable result: American forces no longer trust their Afghan “allies” to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them against the Taliban.
The second war broke out in March, 2003. President George W. Bush had been looking for an excuse to overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from the moment he entered the White House.
Bush blamed Hussein for the 1992 electoral defeat of his father, President George H.W. Bush, to Bill Clinton. As the younger Bush saw it: If only his father had “gone all the way” into Baghdad during the 1991 Iraq war and removed Hussein, he would have won a second term as President.
Bush found his excuse with the 9/11 attacks–by repeatedly and falsely charging that Hussein had massed “weapons of mass destruction” throughout Iraq.
Even more falsely, he claimed that Hussein had conspired with bin Laden in plotting 9/11.
Nor was Bush the only culprit. So were his Vice President, Dick Cheney; his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld; and his National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice.
To hear them tell it, America would go up in a nuclear mushroom cloud unless the country moved–fast–to overthrow Hussein.
So the country went to war again–on March 19, 2003.
The Bush administration invaded Iraq to turn it into a base–from which to intimidate its neighboring states: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Syria and Iran.
But this demanded that the United States quickly pacify Iraq. The Iraqi insurgency totally undermined that goal, forcing U.S. troops to focus all their efforts inward.
Another unintended result of the war: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had been a counter-weight to the regional ambitions of Iran, but the destruction of the Iraqi military created a power-vacumn. Into this–eagerly–stepped the Iranian mullahs.
The third war will likely start in September or October, under President Barack Obama.
A major reason: The American political elite is upset at all the depressing news they’re seeing on TV.
You know, all those images they’re seeing–of dead Syrians killed while trying to overthrow their brutal dictator, President-for-Life Bashir al-Assad.
It’s ruining their breakfast–and maybe their dinnertime as well.
Syrians have been fighting a brutal civil war for two years. Much of the country is trying to overthrow its longtime brutal dictator, Bashir al-Assad, and the rest of it is trying to maintain him in office.
CNN has been covering the war to a larger extent than the formerly “big three” TV networks: CBS, ABC and NBC.
As they say in television journalism: “If it bleeds, it leads.”
And this, in turn, causes many members of Congress and the Obama administration to fear for their jobs. They dread that voters will blame them for not “doing something” to end the fighting.
Like sending in American armed forces to somehow stop it.
9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, BARCK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CBS NEWS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS, CHINA, CNN, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IRAN, IRAQ, ISLAM, ISRAEL, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WORLD WAR 1
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics on September 3, 2013 at 1:00 am
Here are ten excellent reasons for not sending American soldiers to bomb and/or invade Syria.
1. The United States just disengaged from Iraq. On Dec. 15, 2011, the American military formally ended its mission there. The war–begun in 2003–had killed 4,487 service members and wounded another 32,226.
2. The United States is still fighting a brutal war in Afghanistan. By early 2012, the United States had about 90,000 troops in Afghanistan, with 22,000 of them due home by the fall. There has been no schedule set for the pace of the withdrawal of the 68,000 American troops who will remain, only that all are to be out by the end of 2014.
The initial goal of this war was to destroy Al Qaeda–especially its leader, Osama Bin Laden–and its Taliban protectors. But, over time, Washington policy-makers embarked on a “nation-building” effort.
So the American military didn’t wrap up its campaign as quickly as possible and then leave the country to its own devices. Instead, U.S. forces wound up occupying the country for the next ten years.
This increasingly brought them into conflict with primitive, xenophobic Afghans, whose mindset remains that of the sixth century.
A series of murderous attacks on American soldiers by their supposed Afghan comrades-in-arms led to the inevitable result: American forces no longer trust their Afghan “allies” to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them against the Taliban.
3. The war in Iraq fell victim to the law of unintended consequences. The Bush administration invaded Iraq to turn it into a base–from which to intimidate its neighboring states: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Syria and Iran.
But this demanded that the United States quickly pacify Iraq. The Iraqi insurgency totally undermined that goal, forcing U.S. troops to focus all their efforts inward.
Another unintended result of the war: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had been a counter-weight to the regional ambitions of Iran, but the destruction of the Iraqi military created a power-vacumn. Into this–eagerly–stepped the Iranian mullahs.
4. Intervening in Syria could produce similar unintended consequences for American forces–and make the United States a target for more Islamic terrorism.
American bombs or missiles could land on one or more sites containing stockpiles of chemical weapons. Imagine the international outrage that will result if the release of those weapons kills hundreds or thousands of Syrians.

U.S. warship firing Tomahawk Cruise missile
Within the Islamic world, the United States will be seen as waging a war against Islam, and not simply another Islamic dictator.
Almost certainly, an American military strike on Syria would lead its dictator, Bashar al-Assad, to attack Israel–perhaps even with chemical weapons.
Assad could do this simply because he hates Jews–or to lure Israel into attacking Syria.
If that happened, the Islamic world–which lusts to destroy Israel more than anything else–would rally to Syria against the United States, Israel’s chief ally.
5. Since 1979, Syria has been listed by the U.S. State Department as a sponsor of terrorism.
Among the terrorist groups it supports are Hizbollah and Hamas. For years, Syria provided a safe-house in Damascus to Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–the notorious terrorist better known as Carlos the Jackal.
There are no “good Syrians” for the United States to support–only murderers who have long served a tyrant and now wish to become the next tyrant.
6. The United States doesn’t know what it wants to do in Syria, other than “send a message.”
Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military theorist, wrote: “War is the continuation of state policy by other means.” But President Barack Obama hasn’t stated what he intends gain by attacking Syria.
Obama has said he’s “not after regime-change.” If true, that would leave Assad in power–and free to go on killing those who resist his rule.
So it appears that Obama’s “message” is: “You can continue killing your own people–so long as you don’t use weapons that upset American TV viewers.”
7. The Assad regime is backed by–among others–the Iranian-supported terrorist group, Hizbollah (Party of God). Its enemies include another terrorist group–Al Qaeda.
When your enemies are intent on killing each other, it’s best to stand aside and let them do it.
8. China and Russia are fully supporting the Assad dictatorship–and the brutalities it commits against its own citizens. This reflects badly on them–not the United States.
9. The United States could find itself in a shooting war with Russia and/or China.
The Russians have sent two warships to Syria, in direct response to President Obama’s threat to “punish” Assad for using chemical weapons against unsurgents.
What happens if American and Russian warships start trading salvos? Or if Russian President Vladimir Putin orders an attack on Israel, in return for America’s attack on Russia’s ally, Syria?
It was exactly that scenario–Great Powers going to war over conflicts between their small-state allies–that triggered World War l.
10. While Islamic nations like Syria and Egypt wage war within their own borders, they will lack the resources to launch attacks against the United States.
When Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, then-Senator Harry Truman said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”
That should be America’s view whenever its sworn enemies start killing themselves off. Americans should welcome such self-slaughters, not become entrapped in them.
9/11, ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BATMAN, CBS NEWS, CNN, COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, COP KILLER BULLETS, CRIME, ERIC HOLDER, FACEBOOK, FBI, FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, GREEN BERETS, GUN CONTROL, JAMES HOLMES, JR., MARTIN LUTHER KING, MITT ROMNEY, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, NBC NEWS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, SECOND AMENDMENT, SELF-DEFENSE, SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS, STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAWS, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, THE DARK NIGHT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TRAVON MARTIN, TUSCON SHOOTINGS, TWITTER, U.S. CONSTITUTION, U.S. NAVY SEALS, VIRGINIA TECH SHOOTINGS, WAYNE LAPIERRE, WRONGFUL-DEATH LAWSUITS
In Bureaucracy, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 31, 2013 at 12:10 am
The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one – no matter where he lives or what he does – can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on.
–Robert F. Kennedy, April 4, 1968

Senator Robert F. Kennedy announcing the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
What should the surviving victims of gun violence do to seek redress?
And how can the relatives and friends of those who didn’t survive seek justice for those they loved?
Two things:
First, don’t count on politicians to support a ban on assault weapons.
Politicians–with rare exceptions–have only two goals:
- Get elected to office, and
- Stay in office.
And too many of them fear the economic and voting clout of the NRA to risk its wrath.
Consider Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.
Both rushed to offer condolences to the surviving victims of the Aurora massacre. And both have steadfastly refused to even discuss gun control–let alone support a ban on the type of assault weapons used by James Holmes.
On July 22, 2012–only two days after the Century 16 Theater slaughter in Aurora, Colorado–U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said: “The fact of the matter is there are 30-round magazines that are just common all over the place.
“You simply can’t keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals who want to do harm. And when you try and do it, you restrict our freedom.”
That presumably includes the freedom of would-be mass murderers to carry out their fantasies.
Second, those who survived the massacre–and the relatives and friends of those who didn’t–should file wrongful death, class-action lawsuits against the NRA.
There is sound, legal precedent for this.
- For decades, the American tobacco industry peddled death and disability to millions and reaped billions of dollars in profits.
- The industry vigorously claimed there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer, heart disease, emphysema or any other ailment.

- Tobacco companies spent billions on slick advertising campaigns to win new smokers and attack medical warnings about the dangers of smoking.
- Tobacco companies spent millions to elect compliant politicians and block anti-smoking legislation.
- From 1954 to 1994, over 800 private lawsuits were filed against tobacco companies in state courts. But only two plaintiffs prevailed, and both of those decisions were reversed on appeal.
- In 1994, amidst great pessimism, Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore filed a lawsuit against the tobacco industry. But other states soon followed, ultimately growing to 46.
- Their goal: To seek monetary, equitable and injunctive relief under various consumer-protection and anti-trust laws.
- The theory underlying these lawsuits was: Cigarettes produced by the tobacco industry created health problems among the population, which badly strained the states’ public healthcare systems.
- In 1998, the states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related, health-care costs. In return, they exempted the companies from private lawsuits for tobacco-related injuries.
- The companies agreed to curtail or cease certain marketing practices. They also agreed to pay, forever, annual payments to the states to compensate some of the medical costs for patients with smoking-related illnesses.
The parallels with the NRA are obvious:
- For decades, the NRA has peddled deadly weapons to millions, reaped billions of dollars in profits and refused to admit the carnage those weapons have produced: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” With guns.

- The NRA has bitterly fought background checks on gun-buyers, in effect granting even criminals and the mentally ill the right to own arsenals of death-dealing weaponry.
- The NRA has spent millions on slick advertising campaigns to win new members and frighten them into buying guns.

- The NRA has spent millions on political contributions to block gun-control legislation.
- The NRA has spent millions attacking political candidates and elected officials who warned about the dangers of unrestricted access to assault and/or concealed weapons.

- The NRA has spent millions pushing “Stand Your Ground” laws in more than half the states, which potentially give every citizen a “license to kill.”
- The NRA receives millions of dollars from online sales of ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other accessories through its point-of-sale Round-Up Program–thus directly profiting by selling a product that kills about 30,288 people a year.

- Firearms made indiscriminately available through NRA lobbying have filled hospitals–such as those in Aurora–with casualties, and have thus badly strained the states’ public healthcare systems.
It will take a series of highly expensive and well-publicized lawsuits to significantly weaken the NRA, financially and politically.
The first ones will have to be brought by the surviving victims of gun violence–and by the friends and families of those who did not survive it. Only they will have the courage and motivation to take such a risk.

As with the cases first brought against tobacco companies, there will be losses. And the NRA will rejoice with each one.
But, in time, state Attorneys General will see the clear parallels between lawsuits filed against those who peddle death by cigarette and those who peddle death by armor-piercing bullet.
And then the NRA–like the tobacco industry–will face an adversary wealthy enough to stand up for the rights of the gun industry’s own victims.
9/11, ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BATMAN, CBS NEWS, CNN, COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, COP KILLER BULLETS, CRIME, ERIC HOLDER, FACEBOOK, FBI, FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, GREEN BERETS, GUN CONTROL, JAMES HOLMES, MITT ROMNEY, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, NBC NEWS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, SECOND AMENDMENT, SELF-DEFENSE, SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS, STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAWS, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, THE DARK NIGHT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TRAVON MARTIN, TUSCON SHOOTINGS, TWITTER, U.S. CONSTITUTION, U.S. NAVY SEALS, VIRGINIA TECH SHOOTINGS, WAYNE LAPIERRE, WRONGFUL-DEATH LAWSUITS
In Bureaucracy, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 30, 2013 at 12:00 am
Among the major accomplishments of the National Rifle Association:
- In July, 2005, George Zimmerman was arrested for shoving a police officer during an underage drinking raid. The charges were dropped after he completed an alcohol education program. That same summer, his ex-fiancée filed a restraining order against him, alleging that Zimmerman hit her.
- Yet he was allowed to carry a loaded, hidden handgun as a Florida resident–under the 2005 “Stand Your Ground” law the NRA had rammed through the legislature.
- Under that law: A Concealed Carry Permit is revoked only if a gun owner is convicted of a felony. It is not suspended if he’s being investigated for a felony. It is suspended only if he is actually charged.

George Zimmerman
- On February 26, 2012, Zimmerman shot unarmed, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was wearing a “hoodie.”
- In March, the NRA issued its own version of a “hoodie”–the Concealed Carry Hooded Sweatshirt, designed to hide firearms. Selling on the NRA’s website for $60 to $65, it is advertised thusly:
- “Inside the sweatshirt you’ll find left and right concealment pockets. The included Velcro®-backed holster and double mag pouch can be repositioned inside the pockets for optimum draw. Ideal for carrying your favorite compact to mid-size pistol, the NRA Concealed Carry Hooded Sweatshirt gives you an extra tactical edge, because its unstructured, casual design appears incapable of concealing a heavy firearm – but it does so with ease!” http://www.nrastore.com/nrastore/ProductDetail.aspx?c=11&p=CO+635&ct=e

- Anyone—including convicted criminals—can buy these “hide-a-gun” sweatshirts, putting both the public and law enforcers at deadly risk.
- On July 13, 2013, a Florida jury found George Zimmerman not guilty of second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin–largely through the “Stand-Your-Ground” law the NRA had rammed through the Florida legislature.
- The NRA often claims that law-abiding citizens defend themselves with guns millions of times every year. But the FBI has determined that, of the approximately 11,000 gun homicides every year, fewer than 300 are justifiable self-defense killings.
- The NRA supports loopholes that allow criminals to buy guns without background checks, or allow terrorists to buy all the AK-47s they desire.
- In 2012, the NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said the NRA was “all in” to defeat Barack Obama. Yet the President has meekly signed legislation allowing guns to be brought into national parks and onto trains. Since becoming Chief Executive, he has made no effort to curb gun violence.
- High-capacity magazines were prohibited under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It expired in 2004. The NRA–aided by the Bush administration and Republicans generally–easily overcame efforts to renew the ban.
- Political scientist Robert Spitzer, author of the book The Politics of Gun Control, notes that since the passage of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the assault weapons ban in 1994, state and national laws have been drifting toward more open gun access:
- “In 1988, there were about 18 states that had state laws that made it pretty easy for civilians to carry concealed hand guns around in society. By 2011, that number is up to 39 or 40 states having liberalized laws, depending on how you count it, and the NRA has worked very diligently at the state level to win political victories there, and they’ve really been quite successful.”
- On January 8, 2011, Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head while meeting with constituents outside a,Tucson, Arizona, grocery store. Also killed was Arizona’s chief U.S. District judge, John Roll, who had just stopped by to see his friend Giffords after celebrating Mass. The total number of victims: 6 dead, 13 wounded.
- “The NRA’s response to the Tucson shootings has been to say as little as possible and to keep its head down,” says Spitzer. “And their approach even more has been to say as little as possible and to simply issue a statement of condolence to the families of those who were injured or killed and to wait for the political storm to pass over and then to pick up politics as usual.”
- In the spring of 2012, the House Oversight Committee prepared to vote on whether to hold U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for allegedly refusing to provide documents related to “Fast and Furious.” This was an undercover operation launched by the Bush administration to track firearms being sold to Mexican drug cartels.
- The NRA notified Congressional members that how they voted would reflect how the NRA rated them in “candidate evaluations” for the November elections. This amounted to blatant extortion, since the NRA has long accused Holder of having an “anti-gun” agenda.
Summing up the current state of gun politics in America, the April 21, 2012 edition of The Economist noted:
“The debate about guns is no longer over whether assault rifles ought to be banned, but over whether guns should be allowed in bars, churches and colleges.”
That is precisely the aim of the NRA–an America where anyplace, anytime, can be turned into the O.K. Corral.
So what should the surviving victims of gun violence do to seek redress? And how can the relatives and friends of those who don’t survive seek justice for those they loved?
9/11, ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BATMAN, CBS NEWS, CNN, COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, COP KILLER BULLETS, CRIME, ERIC HOLDER, FACEBOOK, FBI, FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, GREEN BERETS, GUN CONTROL, JAMES HOLMES, MITT ROMNEY, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, NBC NEWS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, SECOND AMENDMENT, SELF-DEFENSE, SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS, STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAWS, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, THE DARK NIGHT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TRAVON MARTIN, TUSCON SHOOTINGS, TWITTER, U.S. CONSTITUTION, U.S. NAVY SEALS, VIRGINIA TECH SHOOTINGS, WAYNE LAPIERRE, WRONGFUL-DEATH LAWSUITS
In Bureaucracy, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 29, 2013 at 12:05 am
On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists snuffed out the lives of 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania.

But within less than a month, American warplanes began carpet-bombing Afghanistan, whose rogue Islamic “government” refused to surrender Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the attacks.
By December, the power of the Taliban was broken–and bin Laden was driven into hiding in Pakistan.
For more than ten years, the United States–through its global military and espionage networks–has relentlessly hunted down most of those responsible for that September carnage.
On May 1, 2011, U.S. Navy SEALS invaded bin Laden’s fortified mansion in Abbottabad, Pakistan–and shot him dead.

Now, consider these statistics of death, supplied by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
Every day–365 days a year
- 270 people in America, 47 of them children and teens, are shot in murders, assaults, suicides, accidents and police intervention;
- 87 people die from gun violence, 33 of them murdered;
- 8 children and teens die from gun violence;
- 183 people are shot, but survive their gun injuries;
- 38 children and teens are shot, but survive their gun injuries.
And what does all of this add up to?
- In one year, almost 100,000 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides, accidents, or by police intervention.
- Over a million Americans have been killed with guns since 1968, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated.
- U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher.
- Gun violence impacts society in numerous ways: medical costs; costs of the criminal justice system; security precautions; and reductions in quality of life owing to fear of gun violence.
- An estimated 41% of gun-related homicides would not occur under the same circumstances had no guns been present.
(This average annual estimated composite picture of gun violence is based on death certificates and estimates from emergency room admissions.)
And who, more than anyone (including the actual killers themselves) has made all this carnage possible?
The National Rifle Association, of course.
But unlike the leadership of Al Qaeda, that of the NRA is not simply known, but celebrated.
Its director, Wayne LaPierre, is courted as a rock star by Democrats and Republicans seeking NRA endorsements–and campaign contributions.

Wayne La Pierre
He frequently appears as an honored guest at testimonial dinners and political conventions.
The largest of the 13 national pro-gun groups, the NRA has nearly 4 million members, who focus most of their time lobbying Congress for unlimited “gun rights.”
The NRA claims that its mission is to “protect” the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
NRA members conveniently ignore the first half of that sentence: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State….”
For the NRA, the Second Amendment is the Constitution, and the rest of the document is a mere appendage.
At the time Congress ratified the Constitution in 1788, the United States was not a world power. Only after World War II did the country maintain a powerful standing army during peacetime.
But World War II ended 68 years ago, and today the United States is a far different country than it was in 1788:
-
It boasts a nuclear arsenal that can turn any country into thermonuclear ash–anytime an American President decides to do so.
-
It boasts an Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps that can target any enemy, anywhere in the world.
-
Its Special Forces–Green Berets, Delta Force and Navy SEALS–are rightly feared by international terrorists.
-
If a criminal flees or conducts business across state lines, powerful Federal law enforcement agencies–such as the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration–can put him out of business.
But apparently the NRA hasn’t gotten the word.
- The NRA has steadfastly defended the right to own Teflon-coated “cop killer” bullets,” whose only purpose is to penetrate bullet-resistant vests worn by law enforcement officers.

- The NRA and its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, is responsible for the “Stand-Your-Ground” ordinances now in effect in more than half the states. These allow for the use of deadly force in self-defence, without any obligation to attempt to retreat first.
- The NRA rushed to the defense of accused murderer George Zimmerman, the self-appointed “community watchman” who ignored police orders to stop following 17-year-old Trayvon Martin and ended up shooting him to death.
- Police did not initially charge Zimmerman because of Florida’s “Stand-Your-Ground” law, which the NRA had rammed through the legislature.
- The same “Stand-Your-Ground” law will play a major role in the coming trial of Michael Dunn, a white software engineer, for the first-degree murder of Jordan Davis. The shooting occurred on November 23, 2012, in Jacksonville, Florida.
- Dunn claimed that he argued with three young black men over the volume of their music in their SUV. He said that he saw a shotgun appear in one of the SUV’s windows and he fired his handgun eight or nine times before fleeing.
- Three of Dunn’s bullets killed Davis. Police said that the men in the SUV were unarmed.
ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING, CBS NEWS, CIA, CNN, COLD WAR, CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, DICK CHENEY, DONALD TRUMP, DZOKHAR TSARNAEV, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, GREG BALL, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HERMAN CAIN, JOHN F. KENNEDY, MICHELLE BACHMANN, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, NICCOLO MACHIAVELL, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PIERS MORGAN, RICK PERRY, RICK SANTORUM, TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TORTURE, TWITTER, WATERBOARDING
In Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on May 1, 2013 at 12:02 am
Throughout the Cold War, Republicans held themselves out as the ultimate practitioners of “real-politick,” at home and abroad. They convinced millions of Americans to believe that only their party could be trusted to not sell out America.
As a result, they held the White House–and often the Senate and/or House of Representatives–for most of the 20th Century.
According to Republicans and their Rightist supporters: A President–especially a Democratic one–could never be too aggressive or warlike.
- President Harry S. Truman hemmed in the Soviet Union with a ring of military bases, making its further expansion into Europe impossible.
- But the Right judged this as abject surrender. The reason: Truman refused to again turn Eastern Europe into a mass graveyard and ignite World War III by declaring war on the Soviet Union to “roll back” Communism.
- President John F. Kennedy forced Nikita Khrushchev to withdraw Soviet nuclear missiles from Cuba.
- But, according to Republicans, that was actually a defeat. The reason: He didn’t risk thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union by launching an all-out invasion of that island.
After the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, Republicans lost their Great Red Bogeyman. Now they could only accuse Democrats of being “soft” on crime, not Communism.
Then, on September 11, 2001, the Republicans found their next great enemy to rally against–-and to accuse Democrats of actively supporting: Islamic terrorism.
This ensured the 2004 re-election of George W. Bush–-who had hid out from the Vietnam war in the Texas Air National Guard–over John Kerry, a genuine war hero who had seen heavy action in the same conflict.
In the last column, we saw that the FBI’s “kill them with kindness” approach to interrogation has yielded far better results than the “Jack Bauer/24” methods favored by the CIA and military.
But this has not prevented Republicans from attacking even those FBI agents who have risked their lives at home and abroad to defend America from terrArabism.
According to the high priests of the Republican party, those agents are “naive” do-gooders who don’t have the guts to go “all the way” against America’s enemies.
But Niccolo Machiavelli, whose name is a byward for political ruthlessness, would disagree with those Republicans.
In his small and notorious book, The Prince, he writes about the methods a ruler must use to gain power. But in his larger and lesser-known work, The Discourses, he outlines the ways that liberty can be maintained in a republic.

Niccolo Machiavelli
For Machiavelli, only a well-protected state can hope for peace and prosperity. Toward that end, he wrote at length about the best ways to succeed militarily. And in war, humanity can prevail at least as often as severity.
Consider the following example from The Discourses:
Camillus [a Roman general] was besieging the city of the Faliscians, and had surrounded it….A teacher charged with the education of the children of some of the noblest families of that city [to ingratiate himself] with Camillus and the Romans, led these children…into the Roman camp.
And presenting them to Camillus [the teacher] said to him, “By means of these children as hostages, you will be able to compel the city to surrender.”
Camillus not only declined the offer but had the teacher stripped and his hands tied behind his back….[Then Camillus] had a rod put into the hands of each of the children…[and] directed them to whip [the teacher] all the way back to the city.
Upon learning this fact, the citizens of Faliscia were so much touched by the humanity and integrity of Camillus, that they surrendered the place to him without any further defense.
This example shows that an act of humanity and benevolence will at all times have more influence over the minds of men than violence and ferocity.
It also proves that provinces and cities which no armies…could conquer, have yielded to an act of humanity, benevolence, chastity or generosity.
This truth should be kept firmly in mind whenever Right-wingers start bragging about their own patriotism and willingness to get “down and dirty” with America’s enemies.
Many–like Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney–did their heroic best to avoid military service. These “chickenhawks” talk tough and are always ready to send others into battle–but keep themselves well out of harm’s way.
Such men are not merely contemptible; they are dangerous.
ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING, CBS NEWS, CIA, CNN, COLD WAR, CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, DICK CHENEY, DONALD TRUMP, DZOKHAR TSARNAEV, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, GREG BALL, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HERMAN CAIN, JOHN F. KENNEDY, MICHELLE BACHMANN, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, NICCOLO MACHIAVELL, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PIERS MORGAN, RICK PERRY, RICK SANTORUM, TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TORTURE, TWITTER, WATERBOARDING
In History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on April 30, 2013 at 12:24 am
In his gung-ho views on torture, New York State Senator Greg Ball has plenty of company.
At the November 12, 2011 Republican debate on foreign policy, all seven candidates endorsed the use of torture as an effective counter-terrorism tactic.

Former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain called for the re-authorized use of waterboarding to “persuade” captured terrArabists to talk.
“I don’t see it as torture, I see it as an enhanced interrogation technique,” said Cain.
Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Texas Governor Rick Perry agreed with Cain.
And Perry drew sustained applause when he declared, “This is war…I will defend them [waterboarding and other coercive techniques] until I die.”
The use of waterboarding was discontinued late in the administration of President George W. Bush.
Following much heated, internal debate, officials in the FBI and Justice Department admitted that it constituted torture and was therefore illegal.
But after the killing of Osama bin Laden, several Bush administration officials–notably former Vice President Dick Cheney–tried to reinstitute the technique, or at least its reputation.
They suggested that information acquired during the earlier waterboarding years may have provided an essential clue to locating bin Laden.
Unfortunately for Republicans, the truth about torture generally–and waterboarding in particular–is just the opposite.
Victims will say anything they think their captors want to hear to stop the agony. And, in fact, subsequent investigations have shown that just that happened with Al Qaeda suspects.

Waterboarding a captive
Shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan in October, 2001, hundreds of Al Qaeda members started falling into American hands. And so did a great many others who were simply accused by rival warlords of being Al Qaeda members.
The only way to learn if Al Qaeda was planning any more 9/11-style attacks on the United States was to interrogate those suspected captives. The question was: How?
The CIA and the Pentagon quickly took the “gloves off” approach. Their methods included such “stress techniques” as playing loud music and flashing strobe lights to keep detainees awake.
Some were “softened up” prior to interrogation by “third-degree” beatings. And still others were waterboarded.
In 2003, an FBI agent observing a CIA “interrogation” at Guantanamo was stunned to see a detainee sitting on the floor, wrapped in an Israeli flag. Nearby, music blared and strobe slights flashed.
In Osama bin Laden’s 1998 declaration of war against America, he had accused the country of being controlled by the Jews, saying the United States “served the Jews’ petty state.”
Draping an Islamic captive with an Israeli flag could only confirm such propaganda.
The FBI, on the other hand, followed its traditional “kill them with kindness” approach to interrogation.
Pat D’Amuro, a veteran FBI agent who had led the Bureau’s investigation into the 1998 bombing of the American embasy in Nairobi, Kenya, warned FBI Director Robert Mueller III:
The FBI should not be a party in the use of “enhanced intrrogation techniques.” They wouldn’t work and wouldn’t produce the dramatic results the CIA hoped for.
But there was a bigger danger, D’Amuro warned: “We’ll be handing every future defense attorney Giglio material.”
The Supreme Court had ruled in Giglio vs. the United States (1972) that the personal credibility of a government official was admissible in court.
Any FBI agent who made use of extra-legal interrogation techniques could potentially have that issue raised every time he testified in court on any other matter.
It was a defense attorney’s dream-come-true recipe for impeaching an agent’s credibility–and thus ruin his investigative career.
But there was another solid reason for avoiding interrogations that smacked of torture: Most Al Qaeda members relished appearing before grand juries.
Unlike organized crime members, they were talkative–and even tried to proslytize to the jury members. They were proud of what they had done–and wanted to talk.
“This is what the FBI does,” said Mike Rolince, an FBI experrt on counter-terrorism. “Nearly 100% of the terrorists we’ve taken into custody have confessed. The CIA wasn’t trained. They don’t do interrogations.”
According to The Threat Matrix: The FBI at War in the Age of Global Terror (2011), jihadists had been taught to expect severe torture at tha hands of American interrogators. Writes Author Garrett M. Graff:
“Often, in the FBI’s experience, their best cooperation came when detainees realized they weren’t going to get tortured, that the United States wasn’t the Great Satan. Interrogators were figuring out…that not playing into Al Qaeda’s propaganda could produce victories.”
And the FBI isn’t alone in believing that acts of simple humanity can turn even sworn entmies into allies.
No less an authority on “real-politick” than Niccolo Machiavelli reached the same conclusion more than 500 years ago.
ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING, CBS NEWS, CIA, CNN, COLD WAR, CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, DICK CHENEY, DONALD TRUMP, DZOKHAR TSARNAEV, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, GREG BALL, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HERMAN CAIN, JOHN F. KENNEDY, MICHELLE BACHMANN, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, NICCOLO MACHIAVELL, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PIERS MORGAN, RICK PERRY, RICK SANTORUM, TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TORTURE, TWITTER, WATERBOARDING
In History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on April 29, 2013 at 12:02 am
On the night of April 19, 19-year-old Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombing suspect, was arrested.
And almost immediately afterward, New York State Senator Greg Ball (R) offered his unsolicited advice on how to deal with him. Ball took to his Twitter account and called for the Tsarnaev to be tortured:
“So, scum bag #2 in custody. Who wouldn’t use torture on this punk to save more lives?”
On April 22, Ball appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Show to elaborate on his approach to law-and-order.

Greg Ball
Morgan opened the interview by asking Ball if he still believed that Tsarnaev should be tortured. The following exchange then occurred:
BALL: Absolutely. At the end of the day–you know, I think you interview a lot of politicians. A lot of politicians are full of crap. They’re scared of their own shadow and scared to say what they feel.
I think that I share the feelings of a lot of red-blooded Americans who believe that if we can save even one innocent American life, including we’ve seen the killing of children, that they would use–and this is just for me–that they would use every tool at their disposal to do so.
MORGAN: But he’s an American citizen, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. He committed a domestic crime in Boston, and he’ll be tried in a U.S. civilian criminal court system.
BALL: Right.
MORGAN: How you going to torture him?
BALL: I mean, dude, you’re talking to a guy that supports death penalty for cop killers, terrorists.
MORGAN: Yes, but how would you torture him?
BALL: Piers, I would support–I’m talking about me. If you want to talk to the president of the United States about his policies next time you golf or go play basketball with him, you can ask him. I’m telling you as Greg Ball, I’m telling you as Greg Ball personally–
MORGAN: I understand you’re Greg Ball.
BALL: If you would put me in the room with anybody from the most current scumbags to Osama bin Laden, I’m telling you what I would do. As far as the policy of the United States, you got to take it up with Obama.
MORGAN: I understand. But if you start to torture an American citizen for committing a domestic crime in America, you are crossing a Rubicon.
BALL: Can I ask you a question? What would you do if you were given the opportunity?
BALL: Before Osama bin Laden was shot, if you had 30 minutes in the room, what would you do? Would you play cards with Osama bin Laden?
MORGAN: It’s really a question–
BALL: What would you do?
MORGAN: Let me put this to you.
BALL: No. You answer this. If you met this scumbag–
MORGAN: I’m actually doing the interview, though.
BALL: If you met this scumbag–
MORGAN: No, I really am.
BALL: –before he killed these people and turned people into amputees, what would you do, play cards? Maybe I should have said it in a British accent. This man killed innocent men, women and children.
MORGAN: Can you stop being such a jerk?
BALL: What would you do? You get paid for it. I figured I would give you a taste of your own medicine.
MORGAN: Seriously–
MORGAN: Because you tweeted this to the world. I’m curious what you think. Your behavior so far has been really offensive.
BALL: Because you don’t like it when you don’t have another bobblehead that you can beat up and treat like a coward? The reality is is these men killed innocent men, women and children. As a red-blooded American, I said who out there if it would save an innocent–
MORGAN: But you’re not answering my questions.
BALL: — would not use torture. I would.
MORGAN: I understand all the gung-ho language you’re using. Here’s the point I’m making to you. Do you realize that if you torture this man, what you’re basically endorsing is the torture of American citizens for committing domestic crimes inside America?
Would you as a politician want to bring that in as a standard matter of practice in your country, yes or no?
BALL: What I am saying is that as an individual–
MORGAN: Yes or no?
BALL: If given the opportunity–
MORGAN: Yes or no.
BALL: –to be in a room with somebody like Osama bin Laden, it would be me, Osama bin Laden and a baseball bat. And yes, I would use torture.
MORGAN: It’s very macho.
BALL: It’s not about being macho. If I wanted to be macho, I would challenge you to an arm wrestling contest. I’m telling you how I feel. That’s what I said on Twitter.
And that’s what I said today. You can ask it 100 times over. I will give you the same answer.
9/11, ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BATMAN, CBS NEWS, CNN, COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, COP KILLER BULLETS, CRIME, ERIC HOLDER, FACEBOOK, FBI, FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, GREEN BERETS, GUN CONTROL, JAMES HOLMES, JR., MARTIN LUTHER KING, MITT ROMNEY, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, NBC NEWS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, SECOND AMENDMENT, SELF-DEFENSE, SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS, STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAWS, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, THE DARK NIGHT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TRAVON MARTIN, TUSCON SHOOTINGS, TWITTER, U.S. CONSTITUTION, U.S. NAVY SEALS, VIRGINIA TECH SHOOTINGS, WAYNE LAPIERRE, WRONGFUL-DEATH LAWSUITS
In Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on April 12, 2013 at 12:00 am
The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one – no matter where he lives or what he does – can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on.
–Robert F. Kennedy, April 4, 1968

Senator Robert F. Kennedy announcing the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
What should the surviving victims of gun-massacres do to seek redress?
And how can the relatives and friends of those who didn’t survive seek justice for those they loved?
Two things:
First, don’t count on politicians to support a ban on assault weapons.
Politicians–with rare exceptions–have only two goals:
- Get elected to office, and
- Stay in office.
And too many of them fear the economic and voting clout of the National Rifle Association (NRA) to risk its wrath.
On July 22–only two days after the Century 16 Theater slaughter in Aurora, Colorado–U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said: “The fact of the matter is there are 30-round magazines that are just common all over the place.
“You simply can’t keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals who want to do harm. And when you try and do it, you restrict our freedom.”
That presumably includes the freedom of would-be mass murderers to carry out their fantasies.
Second, those who survive such massacres–and the relatives and friends of those who don’t–should file wrongful death, class-action lawsuits against the NRA.
There is sound, legal precedent for this.
- For decades, the American tobacco industry peddled death and disability to millions and reaped billions of dollars in profits.
- The industry vigorously claimed there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer, heart disease, emphysema or any other ailment.

- Tobacco companies spent billions on slick advertising campaigns to win new smokers and attack medical warnings about the dangers of smoking.
- Tobacco companies spent millions to elect compliant politicians and block anti-smoking legislation.
- From 1954 to 1994, over 800 private lawsuits were filed against tobacco companies in state courts. But only two plaintiffs prevailed, and both of those decisions were reversed on appeal.
- In 1994, amidst great pessimism, Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore filed a lawsuit against the tobacco industry. But other states soon followed, ultimately growing to 46.
- Their goal: To seek monetary, equitable and injunctive relief under various consumer-protection and anti-trust laws.
- The theory underlying these lawsuits was: Cigarettes produced by the tobacco industry created health problems among the population, which badly strained the states’ public healthcare systems.
- In 1998, the states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related, health-care costs. In return, they exempted the companies from private lawsuits for tobacco-related injuries.
- The companies agreed to curtail or cease certain marketing practices. They also agreed to pay, forever, annual payments to the states to compensate some of the medical costs for patients with smoking-related illnesses.
The parallels with the NRA are obvious:
- For decades, the NRA has peddled deadly weapons to millions, reaped billions of dollars in profits and refused to admit the carnage those weapons have produced: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” With guns.

- The NRA has bitterly fought background checks on gun-buyers, in effect granting even criminals and the mentally ill the right to own arsenals of death-dealing weaponry.
- The NRA has spent millions on slick advertising campaigns to win new members and frighten them into buying guns.

- The NRA has spent millions on political contributions to block gun-control legislation.
- The NRA has spent millions attacking political candidates and elected officials who warned about the dangers of unrestricted access to assault and/or concealed weapons.

- The NRA has spent millions pushing “Stand Your Ground” laws in more than half the states, which potentially give every citizen a “license to kill.”
- The NRA receives millions of dollars from online sales of ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other accessories through its point-of-sale Round-Up Program–thus directly profiting by selling a product that kills about 30,288 people a year.

- Firearms made indiscriminately available through NRA lobbying have filled hospitals–such as those in Aurora–with casualties, and have thus badly strained the states’ public healthcare systems.
It will take a series of highly expensive and well-publicized lawsuits to significantly weaken the NRA, financially and politically.
The first ones will have to be brought by the surviving victims of gun violence–and by the friends and families of those who did not survive it. Only they will have the courage and motivation to take such a risk.

As with the cases first brought against tobacco companies, there will be losses. And the NRA will rejoice with each one.
But, in time, state Attorneys General will see the clear parallels between lawsuits filed against those who peddle death by cigarette and those who peddle death by armor-piercing bullet.
And then the NRA–like the tobacco industry–will face an adversary wealthy enough to stand up for the rights of the gun industry’s own victims.
9/11, ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, BARACK OBAMA, BASHIR AL-ASSAD, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, DICK CHENEY, DONALD RUMSFELD, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, IRAQ, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, SADDAM HUSSEIN, SYRIA, TALIBAN, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
POLITICS BY ORWELL: “WAR IS PEACE”: PART TWO (END)
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 5, 2013 at 1:40 pmA two-year civil war is raging in Syria.
United Nations officials estimate that 6,000 people have died there trying to overthrow the dictatorial regime of “President” Bashar al-Assad.
And that’s sending jitters through the Washington elite.
Not the casualties. The fact that they’re being shown in vivid color on YouTube and CNN.
And this, in turn, has led many members of Congress and the Obama administration to fear for their jobs. They dread that voters will blame them for not “doing something” to end the fighting.
Like sending in American armed forces to somehow stop it.
Another reason driving America’s headlong rush into war: Sheer stupidity.
Start with the neocons, who lustily supported the 2003 Iraq war have been spoiling for yet another war in the Middle East.
On March 21, 2013, House Foreign Affairs ranking Democrat Eliot Engel (D-NY) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced the “Free Syria Act of 2013,” calling on the Obama administration to arm the Syrian rebels.
And on May 27, Arizona U.S. Senator John McCain secretly entered Syria and met with commanders of the Free Syrian Army, who are fighting forces loyal to “President” Bashar al Assad for control of the country.
He was the first U.S. senator to travel to Syria since civil war erupted there in 2011. And after he left, he told CNN that he was more convinced that the United States must become more involved in the country’s conflict.
President Barack Obama could have easily confronted these “give war a chance” enthusiests and put them on the defensive–had he wished to do so.
President Obama at press conference
He could have bluntly and repreatedly used the bully pulpit of his office to warn Americans:
And, most importantly, Obama could have directly challenged the macho ethic of the American Right.
Especially those members of it who, while avoiding military service themselves, are always eager to send others into harm’s way at the slightest excuse.
The President could have officially established an all-volunteer brigade for those Americans willing to fight and possibly die in yet another pointless war. And he could have offered to fly them to the border of Syria so they could carry out their self-appointed “conquer or die” mission.
Of course, many–if not most–of these armchair strategists would have refused to put their own lives on the line in defense of a “cause” they claim to believe in.
But then Obama could have brutally–and repeatedly–pointed this out. Hypocrisy is something Americans understand all too well–and despise.
Instead, for a man celebrated for his oratorical gifts, Obama has managed to talk himself into a no-win situation.
Theodore Roosevelt claimed to operate by a South African proverb: “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.”
Obama spoke loudly about the “big stick” of American military power and said that if Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against its enemies, that would be “a red line in the sand.”
By doing so, he needlessly put his credibility as President on the line.
On August 21, the Assad regime was accused of using chemical weapons in Damascus suburbs to kill more than 1,400 civilians.
On August 30, the Obama administration said it had “high confidence” that Syria’s government carried out the chemical weapons attack.
Having boxed himself in, Obama felt he had to make good on his threat–even if it risked the lives of those flying combat missions over Syria’s formidable air defenses.
Yet, even at this late stage, Obama could find a face-saving reason for not intervening. He could state that while there is apparent evidence of a chemical attack, there is no conclusive evidence that this was carried out by the Assad regime.
In short: He could shift the blame to one of the many terror groups operating in Syria–such as Hizbollah or Hammas or Al Qaeda.
This would take the United States off the hook–thus saving the lives of countless American soldiers and avoiding a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia.
But having needlessly put his own credibility–and ego–on the line, this is unlikely.
What’s more likely is Obama will continue to hurtle down the road to disaster.
Share this: