All this aside, I want to know what the USAF feels constitutes a "safe
laser." And once defined, will those who shine "safe" lasers at
aircraft still be hysterically declared Enemy Combatants and lose
their right to legal due process as occurred in New Jersey?



On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:31:54 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote in
::

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about some
wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.

I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.

you keep saying that, and then post Churchill's "justification" which actually
contradicts your claim.

I don't want to defend Churchill, but perhaps its so subtle, that you
overlooked the distinction between the Nazi aspect of Eichmann and the
his enabling, managerial aspect. I don't doubt that Churchill chose
Eichmann for his comparison in an attempt to inflame, but apparently
he could have used the names of the German industrialists
"legitimately" targeted by the Allies with the same implications, and
no one would have taken offence.

The offence taken by the American public probably stems from the
general lack of knowledge of Eichmann's role in WW-II (coupled with
the emotional hysteria generated by the felling of the WTC towers); at
the sound of his name all anyone recalls is the gut wrenching images
of emaciated corpses stacked high like firewood created by the Nazis,
and the public's lack of knowledge causes them to believe, that
Churchill is implying that the WTC "technocrats" were directly
responsible for the same Holocaust. Of course, such a comparison
would truly be absurd.

Without the context in which he made his statement, it is difficult to
discern his true intent, and the public's hysterical knee jerk
reaction is inevitable.

At any rate, with very limited knowledge (one web page) of Churchill's
pronouncements and views, I find the thought of the establishment
dismissing him for what he _said_ to be infinitely more appalling, and
a true insight into the current trend of trampling citizen's rights
granted under the Constitution. His dismissal for this utterance
would be a another _tangible_ example of the totalitarian course set
by the current administration.

After all, noble journalists are currently facing jail time for
exercising their 1st amendment rights in providing the American people
the truth. Is that what we Americans want: the news media to only
report what the administration dictates, or a free press? The choice
is ours.

Are we going to give Churchill the _power_ to prove that the
Constitution has become meaningless, or are we going to tolerate
disparate opinions?

(Robin Williams delivered this gem on last night's Bill Marr show,
"Now the Iraqi people must spend time drafting a constitution for
their country; we could give them ours; we're not using it anymore.")

If we're going to deny Churchill his 1st Amendment rights, then
perhaps we should stop "mad cowboy disease," and impeach the "son of a
Bush" for what he said:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

I think our great nation, founded on liberty and freedom, is secure
enough to tolerate opposing views without committing unconstitutional,
totalitarian acts in the name of patriotism. It's the Salem witch
hunt mentality all over again. Is that what we want for the 21st
century?

--

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981