Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't mike savage a cohort of Alex Jones.

If i am correct then these people are the worst form of psudo media, they spread more fear in the name of truth than the current whitehouse.



Examples are many, it is surely a shame that people take this stuff seriously, i would even say "listen" but i do like to listen to the "voice of reason" and "infowars" it is one of the best insights into the deluded mind we have.

I cant say i listen often as the same old tried stupidity is ranted on about over and over, but what the hell, If it makes me laugh, why shouldn't i listen.

But for pity sake, take this moronic verbal as it comes.

Could i suggest David Icke, and his theories on the British royalty and other "Illuminati" being "reptillian aliens" he too has sold many "best sellers" with this and other theories.

If you believe only in what you are told, then you believe in nothing of importance.

for the record, i made a typo. it should have been floating signfiers.

edit: nevermind, that wasn't my typo.

anyway, Zizek is a very interesting theorist to me. he also describes "empty signifiers," words and symobls that exist in order to be filled with meaning. the cross is such an example. "a word that can be used to define anything else" is another good definition of empty signifiers. for example, anything can be defined in relation to God, since God created everything (in a theistic discursive model, anyway).

i'd say "the nation" is another floating signifier we see being used a lot right now. whole sets of ethical values are being defined in relation to the nation - as patriotic or unpatriotic. apperantly, drug use is now anti-American. and treason is another one of those words subsidiary to the nation.

what is treason? treason is a category of crime ruling bodies invent as a catchall means to eliminate anyone they don't want around. making up a name for it makes it sound more legitimate (legitimacy of the ruling power was at the very core of the revival of democracy and the creation of the Magna Carta). just look at how vague the definition is in the U.S. consititution.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

it's nonsensical to accuse a foregin power of treason for making war with us, so that first line is about revolution. any political revolution is treason here. the second line, "adhering to their Enemies...," basically says that if you agree with someone big brother disagrees with, or if you even make things a little easier for them, you've committed treason.

anyone else see a dysjuncture with democratic idealism here? i'm not even trying to argue whether it's for better or worse, but simply point out that it's not like we've perfected democracy or anything.

Edit; on further thought, could you say the word 'assault' has similar characteristics as treason? Assault is always wrong unless proven otherwise in which case it is no longer called assault but probably self defence. So if somone is treasonous but proven to have just cause what is it called?

Just a guess, but i think they might be called "revolutionaries". Does that sound right? Of course that would only work if they won, if they lost they would still be called traitors i think. didn't someone say once that the victor writes the history books?

History is written by the victors.

A good example are the Rosenbergs, convicted falsely of treason and electrocuted shortly after just because the public was caught up in the "Red Scare".

The ironic part of that tail is that just a bit later they found an actual spy and all they did was put them in prison and then send him back to the USSR.

I'm probably what passes for a US leftist these days, but I have to point out that a lot of this stinking Cold War trash is both truth and lies on both sides. IIRC, evidence from Soviet archives indicates that Julius Rosenberg was as least a minor resource, but most likely neither Julius nor Ethel passed info that hurt people seriously, much less merited their executions.

Like i thought the Iraqi's have right anymore.
What a joke, Us and UK security forces (non military) can kill them on sight, all they have to do is perceive a threat..)

Treason means not dying in one shot. maybe squirting and coughing up blood on the road.

Maybe even identifying the men who shot you at random for driving too close to be in range of their patrols?

Marcus

The rosenbergs. home grown traitors are the hardest to find.
but how hard should we look,

I believe the police in our own countries can shoot us citizens under exactly the same rules of engagement? and they don't always get it right either, but because it is not happenning in Iraq, no one cares... well aside from the occasional race riot!

Actually, we can't, sorry. It kinda depends where in teh US you are. Some areas a a little more tolerant of Use of Force Situations than others. But I can say with absolute certiantly that I cannot use lethal force if I percieve a potential threat. Take for example, the Sean Bell Killing in NYC. The Officers said they perceived a threat, but it turned out the men they shot at were unarmed. Just because there is a precieved threat doesn't mean there is an actual threat and people all over the nation get very very angry when police shoot unarmed citizens. People do care Mystik; Sean Bell, Jessie Sollman, Ama Du Dialo (sorry I butchered the spelling) just to name a few. Incidents like that make people very angry.

I can use force, however, if I perceive a threat, but It must be appropriate and proportional to the threat. If you are an angry citizen and are getting in my face, will I perceive a potential threat? Of course. You might try to hit me. Does that give me justification to kill you? No.

You also need to take into account the tools available to the police too. My department has tasers. If you are running at me with a knife or sword, do I have justification to use deadly force? Perhaps. Will I? No. I can taser you. Am I kept safe? Yes. Are you still Alive? Yes. That's the important thing.

On the side note, some one from the UK please confirm this, but I heard that your police don't normally carry guns on routine patrols (duties, etc). Is that true? Here in the US, all police carry atleast one firearm on duty, and most carry one while they are off duty too.

Exactly what i'm saying is the same as it is in Iraq

Mystikmind, I'm merely commenting on the ability of US police to use Force from your earlier comment (#68). In the US, I really can't use the perception of a threat as justification for Deadly Use of Force. Unless it is very weird circimstances, I need an actual and immediate threat (Ie. an offender pulling out a firearm and aiming it at someone).

If I percieve that an individual is going to kill me, am I justified in killing him? No. There may not have been an actual threat; he may have been unarmed. And remember, appropriate and proprtional. If a man is trying to hit me and grab for my gun, can I kill him? Possibly. Would that be over kill? Yes. Would people be very angry that I shot an unarmed man? Yes. Were there better and more appropriate actions to take if a situtation like that were to happen? Yes. I could OC (the spray), taser, or smack him with my ASP (the baton).

Police are held to a stricter standard as they are charged with keeping citizens protected and safe, even the bad citizens. Soldiers fight the enemies of the state. They have different roles and have different rules.

I hope that clarifies the difference. I'm just trying to point out that police and military operate under very different rules of engagement and in a lot of cases, the military probably has more discretion in their use of force than the average police officer.

ps. Thanks for the info, dragoon. That's really different than here in The US. I guess its calmer in the UK, or atleast I hope it is, lol.