I have a Master's degree. It's not in psychology. But I feel very much qualified to assert that you are delusional.
Mitzell | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 1:43 am | #

Ohhh . . . you're one of those 'good Americans' who is okay with torture and internment camps and can only discuss opposing viewpoints in terms of how evil they are.

If you lived next door to a crematorium, would you smell the smoke? Every Christian resident of the little Polish village of Oswiecz (Auschwitz) claimed they never knew, and they would never do anything like that if only they had known.

Shame on you for turning your education to the service of the willfully blind and power-mad monsters ruining our country.

When Bush is given the power to lock up or kill anyone -- that word anyone includes you. Or are you above the rest of us human beings?

There's a term for that philosophy.
Hess | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 3:02 am | #

It is so useful to have some of the people who comment prove my points for me. Thank you.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 7:34 am | #

Hess and Mitzell, it is due to folks like you, that I went from being an ardent leftist during my college years to the point now where, politically, I am aligned with the Good Dr S. Again, thanskfor proving what the Dr said.
As for your contention, that innocents are being locked up and so on and so forth, where do you get your facts from? From watching previous episodes of Law&Order maybe? or from the great , unbiased intellectuals at the Democratic Underground forums?
wolverine | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 9:18 am | #

by the way Hess--get a grip. Let me know when you see a gas chamber here in the U.S. and maybe I'll take you seriously.

And, btw, it seems to me that it is much more likely that your side of the political spectrum will kill off those who disagree with them (see here for a recent example. Also, you might read the post after this one which quotes the New Sisyphus.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 9:20 am | #

Wolverine . . . wolverine . . . didn't I meet you at the Michigan Militia reunion last August? Still packing that Hitler Youth knife, old buddy?

I hope the anal cyst is better. Stay away from those Gannon types who insist on being 'top' and you will heal faster.

From what you told me back then, your conversion from leftist to rightist wasn't a journey at all. More like that long walk a whore makes from the street corner to the back seat.

For details on the paranoia you cannot see, consider John Ashcroft's five thousand people locked up and held for years without any bail or charges or lawyers allowed, only to convict one -- one! -- on not having a proper visa.

Consider the CIA's private plane that hauls people to Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Kosovo where torture is normal business. You're OK with that? You think they won't do that to you, because you drive a pickup truck in the city and there's flags and yellow ribbons on the bumper.

Consider how low you and the freaky doctor have fallen to be supporting torture and oil wars and claiming anyone who doesn't is .. what? Unamurican?

Jesus would slap the shit out of you.

Doc Farraday
Dr. Farraday | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 9:43 am | #

Politics aside, I just want to say that your articles on these subjects have been a tremendous help to me in discerning what to do about other groups in my life. Thanks very much for your expertise.
Sal | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 11:44 am | #

You're welcome, Sal. Anytime.

Doc Farraday
Dr. Farraday | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 11:51 am | #

Mitzell, what is your criteria for diagnosing Dr. Sanity as delusional? I haven't seen any symptoms in her writing that would lead me to that conclusion. But of course, I don't have a masters degree in anything.

Hess, perhaps we should just behead everybody that we capture. That would be okay, wouldn't it? After all, that seems to be the method our opponents in this conflict prefer. You must keep in mind that Bush can't lock up "anyone". The people who have been detained were captured in combat. According to the rules of war, they can be detained until the end of the hostilities. They haven't committed a "crime" so there is no need for a trial or lawyers. They are enemy soldiers, so it would be ill-advised to just "let them go" until after the conflict is over.

and Dr. Farraday, first of all I find your comments to wolverine offensive. I almost didn't even read the rest of your post. John Ashcroft doesn't have 5000 people locked up. Gitmo is a DoD operation so if you want to take it to a cabinet level position it would be Rummsfeld. Again, since they are soldiers and not criminals they don't need a lawyer. They are not being charged with a crime. There are two accepted ways to release prisoners, prisoner exchange (which is rare even since the days of the Revolution) or the end of hostilities. So I suppose if the terrorists surrender or are defeated these guys will be free to go. Otherwise they should just make themselves comfortable, and be thankful that we don't treat prisoners the same way they do.
Bryan | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 12:23 pm | #

Doc Farraday - your comments just go to show how stupid, and how filled with hate guys like you from the left are. Totally bereft of any ideas that make sense. So, go on, say whatever you like, doesnt bother me anymore than the ranting of the mentally-ill homeless guy at the streetc orner. Except, I feel compassion for him, whereas, you, Doc F are a complete idiot. Your comments prove so.
wolverine | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 12:52 pm | #

My criteria? She's effectively calling half the United States, and the whole damned rest of the world, mentally ill.

Dr. Sanity would have you believe that 9/11 had nothing to do with Israel, and that Karl Rove would just never do anything sneaky...and to suspect anything means that you are paranoid! and insane!

Ridiculous.
Mitzell | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 1:48 pm | #

Excellent post, Dr. S. I do not envy you some of your commenters. I find that once someone starts making ad hominem and/or unsupportable, nonsensical remarks, it no longer pays to discuss anything with them. They are not interested in discussion but in polemics.
ShrinkWrapped | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 2:13 pm | #

Actually, the Hess comment, he's right about Ashcroft's record.

Within 24 hours after 9/11, Ashcroft, not Rumsfeld, was rounding up thousands of Arab Americans and Arabs here on visas and work permits. Entire families, kids and all.

No charges, no lawyers for any of them. No public comments. They just went away. They were held without charges or trials for several years. Only one case ever came before a court, and it was for a clear cut case of staying in the US beyond the time stated on the student's visa.

The rest? We still don't know. Many were deported by the INS without explanation or recourse, even if they had become American citizens. Some are still in custody, here in America or in Diego Garcia and elsewhere. None of Ashcroft's detainees went to Guantanamo.

You know that term, "enemy combatant?"
It's not by accident. It was invented by Gonzales (while he was still in Texas in 2001) to avoid using the regular terms POW, soldier, criminal, terrorist, suspect and so forth. Each of those terms carries a legal definition that has clearly defined rights attached to it. Centuries of international law behind it. So Gonzales made up a new term, which we lawyers would say means nothing (because it has not been defined in case law).

Ashcroft arrested and held easily five thousand people, and denied them every right guaranteed them under US law, and international law.

Check FindLaw. These are just facts.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ram...y/ 20020821.html

Our senior Pentagon staffers are real nervous about dishonoring the Geneva Convention because when our troopers get captured or arrested or they surrender -- the rules we don't apply to 'enemy combatants' today won't be applied to our troopers then.

Legally, by established norms of international law, by the standards America established at the Nuremburg Trials in 1947, Bush and Crew are full blown war criminals, and belong in the Hague with Slobodan.

Bush knows this. He fears hanging, so he's got Gonzales rewriting history and international law as fast as he can. It won't stand.
Modell | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 2:19 pm | #

Mitzell, she's not calling half the US mentally ill, just the ones that see conspiracies in everything. The only thing Isreal had to do with 9/11 is that the Islamic extremists blame the US for Israel's continued existence... but they would hate us anyway even if we abandoned Israel in the geopolitical sense. And Karl Rove is no more sneaky than James Carvil was. But being sneaky is a far cry from setting up Dan Rather to take a fall for not doing his own fact checking. Suspecting something is fishy does not make you paranoid. Beleiving it almost religiously without a shred of proof does (or else it makes you a prophet).
Bryan | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 2:21 pm | #

Modell, "enemy combatant" was in use by at least 1942 in a Supreme Court decision in the Haupt case. Gonzales wasn't involved in that case.

The Arabs who were rounded up were on expired visas and shouldn't have been here in the first place. They are not still in custody. Hess never mentioned them in the first place... he said "internment camps" which I assumed meant Gitmo as that is the only place I could think of that "might" be characterized like that. Diego Garcia is a forward staging and supply base. I seriously doubt that the justice department would send illegal immigrants to a supply base in the Indian Ocean. Deporting someone is not the same as "internment". The people at Gitmo are not "interned" however, they are prisoners. They are not POW's however because they are not fighting in any nation's military (international law prevents us from classifying them as POWs, there is no government on the other side with which to deal). Your contention that Bush and company are war criminals is total BS. The detainees are being held, not exterminated. If it comes to pass that this conflict ends and there is nobody to release I could accept your characterization of war crimes... but it is not against the law to imprison someone who was trying to kill your soldiers.
Bryan | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 2:46 pm | #

I love this "discussion". I have nothing to add that has not been said or infered.

Except that I would like to highjack this thread with something I found that I think everyone would like to read and see (Has great pictures).

An American Artist, spent 03-04 in Iraq, wandering between different American Military units and befriending and seeing old Iraqi friends. His name is Steve Mumford.

Please take the time to read his journal entries and look at his great pictures.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Papa Ray | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 2:56 pm | #

Modell, just as an aside: the CIA does have a detention facility on Diego Garcia... I just disagree with your contention that the justice department sent illegal immigrants there.
Bryan | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 3:01 pm | #

Sorry Modell, one more time. I just realized that the Ashcroft comment you were probably talking about was by Doc F. and not Hess. Most of my comments still apply but ignore (or appropriatly amend) my comments regarding the Hess/Dr. F misuunderstanding. The fact that I was addressing three different people in the same post probably contributed to the confussion there.
Bryan | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 3:18 pm | #

Bryan: I agree with your comment that was directed at me.
Mitzell | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 4:48 pm | #

Well, with one caveat. I DO think Dr. Sanity is calling everyone on the Left mentally ill, though I doubt she really believes that (and it would be quite disturbing if she truly does).
Mitzell | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 4:49 pm | #

Well, it boils down to this - whose side are you on? would you rather be on the sideof Islamic terrorism? or would you let the Govt do its main job, which is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens and its territory? People who say that Pres Bush is a war criminal, or actively oppose the war on terrorism are in a sense siding with the enemy. Looks like Mitzell, Hess, Modelll and other fellow travellers have crossed over to the ranks of fifth-columnists and traitors.
Patriot101 | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 4:54 pm | #

And, actually I am not calling anyone mentally ill. I am not discussing diagnoses, I am discussing defense mechanisms. EVERYONE uses defense mechanisms. Paranoia, projection, denial, distortion are considered psychologically primitive ones, but adults use them all the time. These are not psychiatric DIAGNOSES, however, so I am not calling anyone mentally ill (although some may be, and if they keep using this kind of defense mechanism, there will be little difference between a delusional schizophrenic and a delusional democrat (one will believe all his problems are due to aliens implanting radiowaves in his brain; the other will believe it is the republicans doing it!)
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 5:39 pm | #

By the way, did any of those who disagree with the post read the next one with the link to New Sisyphus? The term "enemy combatant" is NOT a new term and has been in use for at least 60 years. It is propaganda pure and simple to suggest that the Bush Administration made this up. Look at the Supreme Court decisions from 1942.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 5:41 pm | #

Yes, yes -- 'enemy combatant' is a term that's been used since the dawn of civilation. You aren't listening.

The legal definition is what we're talking about. That's what will apply in court, when Bush tries to mumble some answer for his treason. He won't be sitting on Dick Cheney's lap then, and he will be under oath and the rule of law once more.

Now listen.

'Enemy combatant' as it is currently being applied to United States citizens -- by our government -- is a hollow term. The first thing the judge at Bush's trial will tell him is that there is no defense on that score -- 'you cannot deny the inalienable rights of a US citizen under this term, legally. It is a legal fantasy. The Constitution did apply, and does apply, to your deeds, no matter what your hired White House counsel told you. His advice in that regard was straighforward Constitutional treason also.'

You can deny an American's rights thuggishly, illegally, or as a good Republican -- but not legally.

You can be an American criminal, an American terrorist, an American traitor -- we've had regular examples of all of these throughout our history -- but you are an American throughout, not an 'enemy combatant' who loses all rights as soon as someone calls you by this term. Without proving it. Without letting you hear the charges. Without telling your family, your mother, what you were 'disappeared' for. Hey, doctor, what kind of magical thinking is that?

Why is the Magna Carta is suddenly wrong, why is our Declaration now a mistake, why is our Bill of Rights decrepit, and why is the Geneva Convention now 'quaint?' Because Ashcroft and Gonzales say so? Horse puckey. Their opinions hold no more weight against established national and international law than if Hall and Oates said it. These are all supposed to be eternal, universally agreed upon and universally applied principles of humanity.

They either are, or they are not. You cannot have it both ways.

The farmers who forced their English king to sign the Magna Carta, recognizing that they had certain eternal legal rights, did it for their posterity as much as for themselves. Same for our Founding Fathers. Same for the men who hit Omaha Beach. They were fighting for the idea that human beings are born free, and live under the rule of law -- not the whims of powerful persons.

When you cheer for ignoring and violating our Bill of Rights, you are destroying it for your own kids and grandkids, you know. You are destroying the very idea behind America.

Our Declaration of Independence claimed all human beings have inalienable rights, and our Bill of Rights codified our citizens' rights, which are also considered inalienable.

Bush and Crew became constitutional traitors, and fifth columnists, when they broke with our Constitution, and ignored our Bill of Rights, after 9/11. They claimed what our nation was specifically established to deny -- the right of our government to deal absolutely wit
Modell | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 7:35 pm | #

Doc! Great Post! Thanks for sharing your insights and observations.I agree with ShrinkWrapped, your comments have provoked the fuzzy thinkers and I don't want to join the banter. But thanks again for you (and Wolverines) clarity.
Lisa
ljmcinnis | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 7:38 pm | #

Modell, it's time for you to listen.

You said: 'Enemy combatant' as it is currently being applied to United States citizens -- by our government -- is a hollow term. The first thing the judge at Bush's trial will tell him is that there is no defense on that score -- 'you cannot deny the inalienable rights of a US citizen under this term, legally. It is a legal fantasy. The Constitution did apply, and does apply, to your deeds, no matter what your hired White House counsel told you. His advice in that regard was straighforward Constitutional treason also.'

The Supreme Court said: The capture and detention of lawful combatants and the capture, detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by "universal agreement and practice," are "important incident[s] of war." Ex parte Quirin. The purpose of detention is to prevent captured individuals from returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again.

* * *

There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. We held that "[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ... the law of war." While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities. Nor can we see any reason for drawing such a line here. A citizen, no less than an alien, can be "part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners" and "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States,"; such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.

The Bill of Rights, Magna Carte, Declaration of Independence, and Geneva Convention are all still valid. But if you take up arms against your country, whether as an internal rebellion or by enlisting in the service of an external foe, your ARE an enemy combatant.

The legal definition of 'enemy combatant' has been upheld. How many of the detainees are citizens anyway? I know of one, maybe two. That's out of thousands. My quote from the Supreme Court establishes that it doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not. When the war is over, our American Taliban warrior should have every right to go on trial for treason. But until then he is an enemy combatant. Let him rot his ass off in Cuba with his brothers in arms.

Now listen pay attention here: the "certain unalienable rights" refered to in the Declaration of Independence are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Those words do not intend that we as a nation connot defend ourselves when attacked, nor do they intend that we need look the other way when betrayed by our own.

How
Bryan | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 9:50 pm | #

Well crap... got cut off due to the 3000 character limit. It was a good rant... here's the nutshell version:

American Taliban dude should get his day in court and be tried as a traitor as soon as the hostilities end.

Islamic terrorists hate us. Their hatred can't be blamed on any US President, ever. The hatred comes from the fact that Arabs are always getting screwed and they don't want to admit that is usually Arabs doing the screwing. They got their asses kicked twice trying to blame it on Jews, and we didn't have anything to do with Israel winning (Johnson didn't want to get involved in '67; read "Six Days of War")

Bush is doing his job within the confines of the Constitution and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

The full version was a lot better written but I really don't want to do it all again. It was a very emotional tirade.
Bryan | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 9:59 pm | #

Modell - if you believe in the legal theories you are trying to get us to believe in, why not take them to a and file a suit in a Federal Court for starters? Sure would be a good way to prove whether or not your legal theorising holds water.
wolverine | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 11:36 pm | #

Modell, your claim that "five thousand Arabs were rounded up and held in detention for several years after 9/11" is a lie. The link you gave to "prove" your claim actually mentions only two people who were detained.

If the rest of your claims are as dodgy as this one, I don't think you have any argument at all.
Evil Pundit | Email | Homepage | 02.27.05 - 9:05 am | #

P.S. It is my impression that both Mitzell and Hess are seriously mentally disturbed.
Evil Pundit | Email | Homepage | 02.27.05 - 9:06 am | #

Dr. S - This and your related posts are fascinating, and the paranoid responses you've generated more than prove the point. I especially love this one: "Dr. Sanity would have you believe that 9/11 had nothing to do with Israel, and that Karl Rove would just never do anything sneaky...and to suspect anything means that you are paranoid! and insane!" To which I say, if the shoe fits, etc., etc.

The interesting question from an academic point of view is why paranoia is so common on the left today, and why was it so common on the right a generation ago. It must have something to do with a sense of powerlessness.
DBL | Email | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 9:58 am | #

Nice to see some good sense coming out of Ann Arbor!
Jeff Moore | Email | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 10:55 am | #

Modell is engaging in "argument by URL", posting a link that he claims substantiates his wild claim that by sunset on 9/1201 Ashcroft had rounded up 5,000 Arab-Americans.

That link describes a draft plan to create detention centers similar to the Japanese internment camps in WWII - a plan that was never implemented, and certainly not within 24 hours of the 9/11 attack.
Corrie | Email | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 11:26 am | #

Interesting post. My impression of the reactions of the democrats/leftists/liberals to the election last November was that it resembled "narcissistic rage", the response of a narcissist to the discovery that he really cannot control other people in his life.

I am not a mental health professional — this is based on my recollections of old college coursework, plus some fast research over the weekend.
olympias1 | Email | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 6:47 pm | #

it's not often that I feel the need to bookmark a blog posting. Keep up the good work- I'll be back.
Jewels | Email | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 7:01 pm | #

Dr. Sanity is not calling everyone on the Left mentally ill, only those who are persistantly engaging in the described behaviors. Can anyone seriously argue that Karl Rove and not Dan Rather is behind Rather's attempt to peddle obviously false documents?
Vikingstar | Email | Homepage | 03.01.05 - 11:24 am | #

Huh, who knew that deporting people whose visas ran out was fascist oppression and a hanging offense.
Christopher Taylor | Email | Homepage | 08.09.06 - 3:14 pm | #

Excellent article,

I also have been very sad about the lack of peoples ability to think rationaly.

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-m...t97WCgUjX? p=879
Ian Bach | Email | Homepage | 12.08.07 - 1:51 am | #