alphascent
03-30-03, 09:30 PM
Witness to a Lynching
Lynch: (a) to beat or otherwise do physical violence to by mob action (b) to hang or otherwise kill by mob action in punishment of a presumed crime.
Lynch law: The act or practice by a self-constituted court of condemning a person and usually inflicting death on him for a presumed crime or offense without due process of law. (Webster’s New 3rd International Dictionary 1993)
"War"? What "war"? This ain't no "war", its just an old- fashioned lynching. Except instead of rounding up a bunch of vigilantes, our hotheaded leaders have rounded up the infantry, the armored calvary, the Marines and the Airborne Rangers. Instead of a length of hemp rope with a hangman's noose on the end, they're packin' stealth aircraft technology, night goggles, tanks, cruise missles, B-52s, smart bombs, and bunker busters. Instead of chasing down a small group of rustlers, they've gotten themselves into a gunfight with a whole damn country (hopefully it won't turn out to be several countries).
It would appear that our current military action in Iraq is a bit too much like the actions of a lynch mob. We are invading Iraq and killing its soldiers and citizens based on a presumption that they possess weapons of mass destruction, on a presumption that they might use them against another nation preemptively or as part of a terrorist attack, and on a presumption that they might use them against an invading force (wouldn’t we?). Iraq has been presumed guilty, but has not been proven to be so on any of these counts.
That makes "our" war in Iraq little more than the actions of a lynch mob. It is my understanding there is no reason to presume that Iraq is to blame for the events of 9/11/01. It is as if, not finding the true culprit (????Osama Bin Laden????), we decided to string up someone else instead.
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield must not have watched the same cowboy movies that I watched with my grandpa on Saturday mornings when I was growing up in Texas - or at least they seem to have gotten something different out of them than I did. In the ones I saw, the guys that whipped the lynch mob to a frenzy always turned out to be the bad guys!
The Constitution states that the power to declare war lies solely with Congress. Might that not be a protection designed into our Constitution to thwart lynch mob mentalities? There has been a progressive fuzzifying of our U.S. process of declaring war since World War II... it seems to have become easier and easier for the president to act without a specific Congressional declaration of war on another sovereign nation. This has removed some of the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution that might prevent an individual or group of individuals from draining the U.S. coffers (that have been filled by U.S. taxpayers) to pay for lynch mob actions (or actions directed by other less than honorable motives).
By allowing this to occur, we as U.S. citizens, have allowed the Administration and Congress to allocate our tax dollars to a war without the stringent application of due process of law, and we have de facto become members of a lynch mob. Citizen support for the war has increased since the inception of the invasion and bombing. This has occurred in both in England and the United States, whipped by media broadcasts and the rhetoric of our leaders. This provides additional evidence of a frenzied lynch mob disposition!
Of course, George Bush et al. and our Congress have already displayed their high regard for the U.S. constitution by adopting the U.S. Patriot Act quickly, and with little time allowed for reflection (more evidence of a lynch mob frenzy - or premeditation). They also were in a rush to sidestep the moderating voice and influence of the United Nations and non-supporting nations, including France, Germany, and Russia. In their rush for "justice" (freedom?) at any cost it would appear that they violated their oaths of office to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution from threats both foreign and domestic.
Lynch: (a) to beat or otherwise do physical violence to by mob action (b) to hang or otherwise kill by mob action in punishment of a presumed crime.
Lynch law: The act or practice by a self-constituted court of condemning a person and usually inflicting death on him for a presumed crime or offense without due process of law. (Webster’s New 3rd International Dictionary 1993)
"War"? What "war"? This ain't no "war", its just an old- fashioned lynching. Except instead of rounding up a bunch of vigilantes, our hotheaded leaders have rounded up the infantry, the armored calvary, the Marines and the Airborne Rangers. Instead of a length of hemp rope with a hangman's noose on the end, they're packin' stealth aircraft technology, night goggles, tanks, cruise missles, B-52s, smart bombs, and bunker busters. Instead of chasing down a small group of rustlers, they've gotten themselves into a gunfight with a whole damn country (hopefully it won't turn out to be several countries).
It would appear that our current military action in Iraq is a bit too much like the actions of a lynch mob. We are invading Iraq and killing its soldiers and citizens based on a presumption that they possess weapons of mass destruction, on a presumption that they might use them against another nation preemptively or as part of a terrorist attack, and on a presumption that they might use them against an invading force (wouldn’t we?). Iraq has been presumed guilty, but has not been proven to be so on any of these counts.
That makes "our" war in Iraq little more than the actions of a lynch mob. It is my understanding there is no reason to presume that Iraq is to blame for the events of 9/11/01. It is as if, not finding the true culprit (????Osama Bin Laden????), we decided to string up someone else instead.
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield must not have watched the same cowboy movies that I watched with my grandpa on Saturday mornings when I was growing up in Texas - or at least they seem to have gotten something different out of them than I did. In the ones I saw, the guys that whipped the lynch mob to a frenzy always turned out to be the bad guys!
The Constitution states that the power to declare war lies solely with Congress. Might that not be a protection designed into our Constitution to thwart lynch mob mentalities? There has been a progressive fuzzifying of our U.S. process of declaring war since World War II... it seems to have become easier and easier for the president to act without a specific Congressional declaration of war on another sovereign nation. This has removed some of the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution that might prevent an individual or group of individuals from draining the U.S. coffers (that have been filled by U.S. taxpayers) to pay for lynch mob actions (or actions directed by other less than honorable motives).
By allowing this to occur, we as U.S. citizens, have allowed the Administration and Congress to allocate our tax dollars to a war without the stringent application of due process of law, and we have de facto become members of a lynch mob. Citizen support for the war has increased since the inception of the invasion and bombing. This has occurred in both in England and the United States, whipped by media broadcasts and the rhetoric of our leaders. This provides additional evidence of a frenzied lynch mob disposition!
Of course, George Bush et al. and our Congress have already displayed their high regard for the U.S. constitution by adopting the U.S. Patriot Act quickly, and with little time allowed for reflection (more evidence of a lynch mob frenzy - or premeditation). They also were in a rush to sidestep the moderating voice and influence of the United Nations and non-supporting nations, including France, Germany, and Russia. In their rush for "justice" (freedom?) at any cost it would appear that they violated their oaths of office to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution from threats both foreign and domestic.