Was there ever a neoconservative / neofacist 'blacklist' created

[Must_B_Free]

You know - like a list of all the collaborators in the Bushista junta?

- Joint Chiefs -
- offensive GOPers
- Chris Matthews
- everyone on Fox

etc.

Basically I'd like to see al the people put together out in the open so that can see that their actions have been recorded.

They think they are safe, but if things go awry for Bush, these people may in fact, end up being held accountable for their complicity in actions taken against American Democracy.

Has anyone taken it upon themselves to target them now so they can know that we are watching, and will not forget?

[Flying_Pig]

1. Certainly, some are aware. I've written many, including PNAC whore

Thomas Friedman at the NY Times. It would be great though, if there were a complete list somewhere, we could refer to. If we win in 04', I am all for Nuremberg type trials for many of these people, both in the government, the media, and at some of these fascist think tanks. We must make sure, that after the "beast" has been removed, that they will never again be allowed to rise to power.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. oh yes, this sounds good and progressive

Have you stopped to think what you posts would look like if your names, or those of liberal commentators, were substituted for those you hate? It would make Ann Coulter look forgiving.

[thebigidea]

3. can you please let us know what war crimes Molly Ivins is responsible for

or Al Franken?

great Cleesey nickname, not-so-great post.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. the same number

as Thomas Friedman, Chris Matthews, and the people on Fox, ie none.
Commentary is not a war crime.
"Offensive GOPers" may cover a huge area too - offensive to you? Or does it mean people who actually made the decisions to go to war (ie on the offensive), like Bush? As for the Joint Chiefs - I doubt any lawyer would actually say that following the instructions of Congress and President is a war crime, when there was also an ambiguous UN resolution.

Be realistic. Calling for a blacklist, or war crime trials for the media, is the stuff of McCarthyism.

[thebigidea]

5. well, I think he/she wasn't just restricting it to the media

"Commentary is not a war crime."

well, they didn't like Lord Ha Ha too much. Or Tokyo Rose, et al.

as far as being realistic goes, it wasn't my idea. Just pointing out that liberal commentators are not complicit in selling an abomination of a war based on lies and crazed imperialistic agression.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. So you're accusing Fox of treason?

Would someone like Joe Kennedy come under this definition too, since he opposed America's war with the Nazis? Or maybe his son John, far Vietnam?

[thebigidea]

11. did Joe Kennedy broadcast on behalf of the Nazis?

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. not as a broadcaster, but his views were well known

http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/15/kennedy/index1.html

"Kennedy was, of course, the Roosevelt administration's most renowned critic of an Allied involvement in the war, and Kennedy never shook a reputation for a pro-German point of view."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kennedys/timeline/

"October 19: Ambassador Kennedy argues for co-existence with dictatorships in a speech at the Trafalgar Day dinner of the Navy League."

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/bush/stories/other.dynasties/

"He was relieved of that post in 1940 for being too sympathetic to Germany"

[thebigidea]

19. so? wasn't this about media complicity?

We were talking about FOX, heir to the Goebbelsian throne.

[Mairead]

7. "I doubt that following instructions is a war crime"

'I was only following the lawful instructions of my superiors' didn't save Feldmarschall Keitel or Generaloberst Jodl at Nürnberg. The Nuremberg Principle says that one has a positive duty to humanity to refuse to follow such orders--to retire or resign instead, or even go to prison or be executed, if necessary. It's quite a high standard, and the principal reason, I'm sure, that the US has refused to sign up for the ICC.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. There's a lot of difference between invading Poland and Iraq

Iraq had UN sanctions against it, and another UN resolution threatening 'serious consequences'. Saddam was a torturer, who would have been banged up by the ICC in a flash if they could have.

If you really think that the military were complicit in crimes, then that also goes for all the congressmen who voted for the war resolution, whether Republican or Democrat.

I don't think that starting the war was right, because there were other avenues open to the world community (further inspections, different sanctions). But to say that everyone who agreed with the war is a criminal, is aping the unthinking hatred of people like Coulter.

[Mairead]

10. No, according to the Nuremberg Principles, there's NOT a lot of difference

They say rather clearly that it's a war crime to gratuitously attack another country EVEN IF you've tarted up some evidence and have talked some other greedy bastard into helping.

(edit) Oh, and yes: legislators too. The executive, and the legislature, and possibly even the Supreme Court since they could have stopped it but didn't. All complicit. If there's any justice in the world, those who voted No are going to be damned thankful one day.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. those who tarted up the evidence

have less of an excuse. To say that everyone involved in the war should be tried for treason or war crimes is so over the top that I suspect you're just trolling.

[Mairead]

20. Everyone who took a decision to go forward based on the bogus

'evidence' is ipso facto liable. The people below the General Staff aren't liable, but the Really Big Chunks --the ones who lied, or who winked at the lies-- are.

Don't criticise me if you don't like it, complain to the people who made up the Principles.

[thebigidea]

12. ridiculous

"Iraq had UN sanctions against it, and another UN resolution threatening 'serious consequences'."

yeah, but notice the UN didn't invade Iraq.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. war crimes would be judged

taking into account the UN resolutions. Since the UN was ambiguous, there's no way these people could be tried with anything.

[thebigidea]

14. ambiguous?

AMBIGUOUS?

er?

I just love the talking points that come out about UN resolutions when this stupid war is discussed... I thought the UN was an "irrelevant debating society" - why bother bringing up resolutions?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Yes, ambiguous

the UN said Iraq faced "serious consequences" if it continued to violate its obligations. Some commentators said that means military action in diplomatic terms; Bush and Blair certainly chose to interpret it that way. Other people (including me) thought that the consequences would have to be further defined by the UN.

I don't think the UN is irrelevant. And just because Bush thought it was, it wouldn't stop anyone else using it in a defence against criminal accusations.

[thebigidea]

17. so why not leave it to the UN?

Almost charming how Bush cited UN resolutions while ignoring the UN & world opinion in the pursuit of his insane war.

[bpilgrim]

6. please add to the list... bbs.globalfreepress.com

http://bbs.globalfreepress.com/index.php?c=5

:hi:

peace

[MrPrax]

21. mediatransparency has a good database

Their database links foundations, people and media fundraising and funding...not complete, but most of the players are itemized...

http://www.mediatransparency.org/