Strange comments from Rice re:"militia" role


PDA






K-Romulus
April 6, 2006, 12:48 PM
She is talking about Iraq, but is this a statement of principle, or of immediate politics re:Iraqi government?

What is happening in Iraq with the Sunni-vs-Shia conflict is almost identical, as a matter of principle IMO, to why her own father owned a shotgun in the Old South . .:confused:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1746102,00.html

Iraq's interior ministry refusing to deploy US-trained police

Plans for non-sectarian force under threat
Rice insists that power of militias must be curbed

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad
Tuesday April 4, 2006
The Guardian


Iraq's interior ministry is refusing to deploy thousands of police recruits who have been trained by the US and the UK and is hiring its own men and putting them on the streets, according to western security advisers.
The move is frustrating US and British efforts to build up a non-sectarian Iraqi police force which would not be infiltrated by partisan militias.

The disclosure highlights growing US and British concern about the role of militias in sectarian killings, and their links to senior Iraqi politicians. "You can't have in a democracy various groups with arms - you have to have the state with a monopoly on power," Condoleeza Rice, the US secretary of state, said at the end of her two-day visit to Baghdad yesterday.

"We have sent very, very strong messages repeatedly, and not just on this visit, that one of the first things ... is that there is going to be a reining in of the militias... It's got to be one of the highest priorities."
. . .

Sunni politicians and residents of Baghdad have claimed that the ministry supports several "death squads" which are said to be responsible for abducting and murdering hundreds of Sunnis in recent weeks.


What she said earlier:

http://www.mcsm.org/rice01.html

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, recalling how her father took up arms to defend fellow blacks from racist whites in the segregated South, said Wednesday the constitutional right of Americans to own guns is as important as their rights to free speech and religion.

In an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Rice said she came to that view from personal experience. She said her father, a black minister, and his friends armed themselves to defended the black community in Birmingham, Ala., against the White Knight Riders in 1962 and 1963. She said if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons, she did not think her father and other blacks would have been able to defend themselves.
. . .
Rice said the Founding Fathers understood "there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Ala., when, in fact, the police weren't going to protect you."

If you enjoyed reading about "Strange comments from Rice re:"militia" role" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LAR-15
April 6, 2006, 12:57 PM
A true State Department opinion. :rolleyes:

LAR-15
April 6, 2006, 12:59 PM
And is the Iraqi police or army going to protect you?

No, sadly.

Neither are US troops or British troops

Maxwell
April 6, 2006, 01:01 PM
Hmm... I dont see anything there about disarming militias or citizens, just that the militias have to be obedient to the state and not a private/religious interest.

The militias, same kind that the anti-guns feel are outdated in modern warfare, have been a pain in the ass to peacekeeping efforts. Its hard to run a state and secure everyone with rogue militias doing their own thing. They have to be working with the government.

I think the deeper problem is the government also has to work with them. You cant just hand down a decree to a bunch of armed men and expect they will fall in line without being heard.

migoi
April 6, 2006, 01:05 PM
that militias should NOT be obediant to the state but to the needs of the people.

migoi

seeker_two
April 6, 2006, 01:22 PM
"You can't have in a democracy various groups with arms - you have to have the state with a monopoly on power," Condoleeza Rice, the US secretary of state, said at the end of her two-day visit to Baghdad yesterday.

So much for the last, best hope against Hillary... :banghead:

longeyes
April 6, 2006, 01:26 PM
To the tyrant everyone else with a gun looks like a "warlord."

Governments that, in essence, do not trust the people, armed, are not "democracies." And let us not deceive ourselves that democracy is the real goal over there. It's control.

LAR-15
April 6, 2006, 01:34 PM
I doubt she has a problem with an AK in the house for self defense unlike Hillary.

cosine
April 6, 2006, 01:47 PM
I saw this comment posted on another forum:
It seems like she is talking more about different armed factions competing with the power of the army/police. The equivalent here would be radical white supremacist groups, crips/bloods/other gangs, that sort of thing.

If that is what she meant, than yes, I think she's correct. However, if that is what she meant, I'm extremely disappointed in her choice of words. She communicated her position very poorly.

But, if that is not what she meant, well, than she maybe isn't as solid on human rights and freedoms as I though. In fact, if that is so, I'm afraid my opinion of her really plummeted.

Art Eatman
April 6, 2006, 01:53 PM
I see a whole bunch of different dictionaries working here about the meaning of "militia". AS USED, I gotta go along with Rice.

From some analyses from StratFor, the Iraqis ARE improving at a great rate, using ever-less US assistance and more of their own people in response to these Bad Guy groups.

That's part of why the "Green Zone" is being reduced in size.

Art

Bartholomew Roberts
April 6, 2006, 02:43 PM
Art put it much more diplomatically than any of the words that came to my mind.

"Militia" does not mean that any group of guys with guns gets to do as they please. The whole purpose of laws is to solve problems without resorting to violence. I realize that concept sometimes gets lost in the discussion around here that focuses on what do you do when the government no longer obeys the laws; but if the militia doesn't serve the law, then it might as well be an armed gang of thugs.

tellner
April 6, 2006, 03:01 PM
Dr. Rice and her employers went in without a plan, with too few soldiers or too many, hoped to do the war and occupation on the cheap and managed to turn the whole thing into the biggest Charlie Foxtrot since "Hey Ivan! Let's invade Afghanistan!" So now she's reduced to saying to the puppet government she helped set up "Look at this mess! It's your responsibility to clean it up."

Oy.

Art Eatman
April 6, 2006, 03:31 PM
From StratFor, about the Green Zone:

"The move also is likely to play well with the military itself; the U.S. Army has sought to extricate itself from Green Zone security burdens for quite some time. For example, approximately 800 troops, more than a full battalion, were dedicated to security in the Green Zone in August 2004, and the leadership of an entire brigade spent about 60 percent of its time dealing with security there -- not to mention the additional resources (including Navy SEALs, military police and other personnel) tasked with security for Iraqi political leaders. At that time, the Army proposed turning over portions of the zone to Iraqi control -- hoping to free up units for other duties, such as fighting insurgents.

The Iraqis certainly are not averse to such proposals; because the Green Zone is the primary seat of government within Baghdad, who controls the area is an issue with high symbolic implications. Having Iraqis providing protection would improve the government's image as a legitimate authority and reduce the sense that the area is under U.S. occupation."

and

"Scaling back the Green Zone -- both in terms of U.S. presence and the area's physical size -- also would remove a source of considerable irritation to the residents of Baghdad. Given the existence of multiple checkpoints and tight security, entering and leaving the Green Zone can take hours for ordinary Iraqis. Several important roads that pass through the Green Zone are closed, including one of the main bridges connecting downtown Baghdad with the southern part of the city. Eliminating these inconveniences would remove a source of tension between coalition forces and locals."

and

"But the nature of the violence in the country is shifting and will continue to do so as the political process unfolds. Jihadist activity and the Sunni insurgency can be expected to decline over time, but threats to corporations from crime will remain -- and probably grow, incorporating former insurgents.

As it stands now, most of the violence in Baghdad stems from the activities of criminal gangs -- robbery, smuggling, kidnappings, sectarian killings -- rather than from political insurgents (though the insurgency gets most of the public's attention)."

Couple this with other comments about the shift in ability to handle security, and the situation is--while certainly not good--nowhere nearly so bad as some would have it believed.

Art

SSN Vet
April 6, 2006, 03:41 PM
Iraq is SO different from anything typical Americans have experienced....

Our society is, though history revisionist and libs with agendas will deny it with endless lies, steeped in Judeo-Christian influence. Islamic nations are VERY different at their very core than anything we're familiar with.

Don't think all people are cut from the same cloth and that there is a "one size fits all" system of government that's going to work. Americans are often viewed (and resented) overseas for being incredibly naive.

Your talking about people who wholeheartedly subscribe to ideas such as....

1. As a man, it is your duty to avenge the blood of your male relative. You and dad and your bros. go out and murder one (of more) of theirs....regardless if they had anything to do with it.

2. If your daughter is raped by the local band of thugs.....when she gets home you kill her because she has dishonored the family.

3. If one of your daughters is pregnant out of wedlock....you kill her for dishonoring you....then you kill all of your other daughters, because they have been contaminated by their sisters influence and will certainly follow her example. (just happened in Pakistan last month....slit their throats while mama begged him to stop).

Dr. Rice knows what is pretty obvious.....the Sunnis and the Shiites hate each other and will commit genocide in a heartbeat. Iraq will never have a drop of stability and we will not be able to get the h@ll out of there until this stuff gets under control....which seems less and less likely to happen.

At least the Kurds are congregated into a fairly homogenous region and can put up some kind of a "fence" (trench line with machine gun nests).

Jeff White
April 6, 2006, 03:48 PM
Dr. Rice is correct. You can't have any kind of stable government with armed political parties running all over the place.

In US Code the militia is part of the government. It is a force that is available for the elected government to use to keep order and defend the country.

When you have various armed groups that aren't loyal to the central government you have chaos. Imagine what life would be like here if the DNC, RNC, Green Party, Libertarian Party et al ... sponsored armed auxillaries and essentially controlled certain states, counties and precincts. The constitution and the elected government would be meaningless.

Jeff

tellner
April 6, 2006, 04:23 PM
Iraq is SO different from anything typical Americans have experienced....

Our society is, though history revisionist and libs with agendas will deny it with endless lies, steeped in Judeo-Christian influence. Islamic nations are VERY different at their very core than anything we're familiar with.

Absolutely true. Up until just a couple centuries ago the Islamic world was the center of trade, science, civilization, art and reliable government. The Christian world (with the exception of parts of Africa) was backwards, superstitious, insular, chaotic and run by armed gangs who practiced utter oppression of the vast majority and crushed any and all expressions of religious tolerance. :rolleyes:

Don't think all people are cut from the same cloth and that there is a "one size fits all" system of government that's going to work. Americans are often viewed (and resented) overseas for being incredibly naive.
It's that combination of ignorance and a belief in our own infallibility that gets us into things like this.

Your talking about people who wholeheartedly subscribe to ideas such as....

1. As a man, it is your duty to avenge the blood of your male relative. You and dad and your bros. go out and murder one (of more) of theirs....regardless if they had anything to do with it.

2. If your daughter is raped by the local band of thugs.....when she gets home you kill her because she has dishonored the family.

3. If one of your daughters is pregnant out of wedlock....you kill her for dishonoring you....then you kill all of your other daughters, because they have been contaminated by their sisters influence and will certainly follow her example. (just happened in Pakistan last month....slit their throats while mama begged him to stop).

Strangely enough, this wasn't exactly what Iraq was like before. But we have destroyed the (bad) order that existed before and replaced it with a puppet government that can not govern, one in which the only sources of authority are religious ones. Do the vast majority of Muslims believe in the rather colorful and horrible practices you present here? Depends on where you are. The places where our good friends the Saudis have had the most influence, certainly. The places where it's so backward that they have daylight brought in by donkeys once a month? Yep. But there's a lot more to the Muslim world than that, regardless of what Faux News and Pat Robertson would have you believe.

Pakistan? You bet. That place really is a reactionary, fundamentalist, backwards tribal pit when it comes to religion in public life. I hate to say it, because most of the Pakistanis I know have been really wonderful people, but there you are.

Heck, it wasn't that long ago that SOP for pregnant girls in parts of America was abandonment without help or support to starve with the baby. And before that our Christian Values consisted of sayings like "Nits make lice" and "Segregation today. Segretation tomorrow. Segregation forever!" I remember a saying about beams and splinters from some carpenter turned rabbi.

Dr. Rice knows what is pretty obvious.....the Sunnis and the Shiites hate each other and will commit genocide in a heartbeat. Iraq will never have a drop of stability and we will not be able to get the h@ll out of there until this stuff gets under control....which seems less and less likely to happen.

At least the Kurds are congregated into a fairly homogenous region and can put up some kind of a "fence" (trench line with machine gun nests).

Another reason to thank our friends the British and French. Just like the Scramble in Africa they drew arbitrary lines on the map after the Ottoman Empire collapsed and said "These are the nations." We'll take three groups. One has always been kicked; we'll split them up among all their neighbors (the Kurds). We'll include one smaller religious group and promote it over the larger one during the colonial period but make sure both of them are stuck in the same country.

At least the Kurds have some hope. They've got a more-or-less democratic form of government, oil, a sense of identity. If the European reports are correct they've cut most of the roads heading towards the South to make it harder for the Arabs to invade them.

Maxwell
April 6, 2006, 04:58 PM
f the militia doesn't serve the law, then it might as well be an armed gang of thugs.

Thats how I feel.
Its very hard to make things right with just a rifle. A proper militia simply enforces the states ability to operate, and the state works to build real peace and prosperity. Militia are just the fall back security force.

To that point, they dont go on shooting rampages or get in fights with each other over petty personal squabbles. Their goal right now should be looking out for insurgents, securing the border, and making the streets safe for other citizens.
Its hard to do that if you dont respect orders from the state your supposed to be protecting.

Lobotomy Boy
April 6, 2006, 05:31 PM
Rice is just describing one of the fundamental definitions of a functioning nation state: a central government that maintains a monopoly on the controlled use of violence. She's correct in her assessment of the situation in Iraq--if it is possible for us to "win" (whatever that means now) the Iraq war, such a victory can only happen by creating a central government that has a monopoly on the use of force. I'm not sure if that is possible by now, given the state of chaos the country has devolved into. I hope it is, but I'm not optimistic.

This does relate to our situation in the U.S. I believe the hidden motives behind gun control involve giving the state an absolute monopoly on the use of force, thus giving it absolute power. We are a long way from that, and hopefully we'll remain a long way from that for the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean we aren't a functioning nation state (though on certain days I wonder about that). It just means that the nation state doesn't have absolute power at this point.

ArmedBear
April 6, 2006, 06:23 PM
We are a long way from that

As some people undoubtedly said in Germany, circa 1932...

c_yeager
April 6, 2006, 06:29 PM
Read what she said very carefully.

"You can't have in a democracy various groups with arms - you have to have the state with a monopoly on power," Condoleeza Rice, the US secretary of state, said at the end of her two-day visit to Baghdad yesterday.


The American ideal of a militia is a single group or groups with a COMMON GOAL. That is integral to the function of our concept of a militia. If you have a variety of disperate groups who are opposing one another then what you have is anarchy, which is not democracy. When one "militia" begins fighting the other militias then at least one of the sides of that conflict is not serving "the people" and as such has deviated from it's purpose. Rice is correct in her statement.

The state *does* have to have a monopoly of power in order to function. A state that does not serve the people will lose its monopoly by way of civilian militias and elections, but untill that moment they must retain it in order to even function. The monopoly of the states power comes with the consent of the people, but it is a vital part of governing.

Fletchette
April 6, 2006, 06:43 PM
I do not think Condi has pulled a Klinton double-speak on this one. I think she still believes adamantly in the Second Amendment.

I think she meant that the central government must have a monopoly on sovereignty if it is to represent one nation, which is true. Otherwise you are in a civil war, even if shots are not being fired. I think she was talking about the local militias doling out their own brand of justice (killing members of other parties/ religious sects). She simply meant that the central government (and official regional govenrnments) had the sole authority to establish and enforce laws. The various armed groups did not have the authority to run around making political executions.

Having said that, warfare is political killing on a grand scale. If the government fails to uphold law and order, and to protect individual liberty, then citizens should band together and form their own governments. This is also civil war.

Personally, I think Iraq should be divided up into three nations; Sunni, Shia and Kurd. I do not think these different groups really want to be in the same country with each other, which means that civil war is all but inevitable.

Where to draw the line between just "militias" and unjust "vigilantes" is a matter of opinion, and is usually decided by whomever wins the war.

Lobotomy Boy
April 6, 2006, 06:55 PM
As some people undoubtedly said in Germany, circa 1932...

While I agree that we are heading down a slippery slope, with a treasonous administration declaring itself above the law when it comes to exposing covert operatives and breaking wiretapping laws, we are still a lot farther away from gun bans than Germany was in 1932. We've weathered political storms like this before, with McArthy in the 1940s and 1950s, with Nixon in the 1960s and 1970s, and we came through without losing our guns.

seeker_two
April 6, 2006, 07:25 PM
We've weathered political storms like this before, with McArthy in the 1940s and 1950s, with Nixon in the 1960s and 1970s, and we came through without losing our guns.
__________________

...like GCA 1968?... :scrutiny:

Lobotomy Boy
April 6, 2006, 07:34 PM
There has been a slow and steady erosion of gun rights to be sure, like the GCA of 1968 and the Bush Senior rifle importation ban, but there have also been gains. Look how many states have passed "shall-issue" handgun carry laws since the Assault Weapon Ban was put in place. We can't quit fighting, but in regards to Second Amendment rights, we have had more gains than losses in the past decade.

I was talking about the Federal Government's tendency to appropriate absolute authority for itself, which is a never-ending process. It is a process in high gear with the current administration, but we will survive this administration just as we survived the Nixon, Johnson, and Truman administrations. As long as we have the Bill of Rights the Federal Government will never have absolute authority.

cosine
April 6, 2006, 07:36 PM
C_yeager hit the nail on the head in post #20.

Molon Labe
April 6, 2006, 07:36 PM
When you have various armed groups that aren't loyal to the central government you have chaos.Like the militia at Concord?

I mean this with all seriousness and due respect, Jeff: I really really believe you would have been a loyalist during our War of Independence, and would have fought against the rebelling colonists.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 6, 2006, 08:03 PM
Maybe if you read beyond just the portion you quoted out of context you would have a better understanding of what Jeff said?

Or were you contending that an effective government involves armed groups shooting each other instead of deciding things at the ballot box?

RealGun
April 6, 2006, 08:18 PM
Rice was actually dignifying these armed groups by calling them militias. I think of a militia as needed to protect, defend, repel, keep or restore the peace. These guys are doing none of that, acting as revolutionaries, Muslim radicals with guns. Not only are they not the proper armed force of Iraq, but they are the enemy, certainly criminals.

brickeyee
April 7, 2006, 10:43 AM
"Like the militia at Concord?"

And what do you think the militia at Concord was doing?
Rebelling against a government.
Try reading just the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
The colonisits new exactly what they were doing.
Starting a war.

What do you think the outcome would have been if instead of banding together the various colonies and groups had splintered into factions?

The colonists managed to come together despite their differnces (mostly regional) to form a single force under a single command.

RealGun
April 7, 2006, 11:33 AM
The colonists managed to come together despite their differnces (mostly regional) to form a single force under a single command.

Actually a standing, trained army quickly displaced the rag tag militias.

benEzra
April 7, 2006, 02:34 PM
Rice is just describing one of the fundamental definitions of a functioning nation state: a central government that maintains a monopoly on the controlled use of violence.
The British were trying to create and maintain such a monopoly by disarming the colonists at Lexington and Concord. The Weimar Republic also established such a monopoly.

Read the Federalist no. 46 to see what the Founding Fathers thought of the State having a monopoly of force. The express purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent the state from having such a monopoly.

Jeff White
April 7, 2006, 03:06 PM
Please point me to the Federalist Paper where the founders advocated armed political parties. The situation in Iraq where there are various armed factions determined to control their areas of influence by force of arms is nothing like we have ever experienced in this country.

The situtation in Iraq is nothing like the American revolution. Imagine that the militas of the 13 colonies fought with each other and the continental army. Imagine the Virginia milita attacking the North Carolina delgation to the Continental Congress on the way to Philidelphia. Imagine the federalists and anti federalists killing each other instead of debating what's to be in the constitution. Then you will have a better perspective on what Dr. Rice has said.

All of the various factions were loyal to the central government, the continental congress. That's not the case in Iraq. In Iraq the various armed factions are loyal only to themselves. That's why Dr. Rice made that statement.

If you think you can have an armed political party in the US, I suggest you look up Presser v. Illinois. It's not exactly a new decision.

Jeff

CAnnoneer
April 7, 2006, 03:34 PM
I think Rice should be asked exactly what she meant. If journalists had any balls left, she'd be shelled with questions at her next public appearance exactly because of the possible unconstitutionality involved. All she needs to say is she did not mean it that way. Why is this so much to ask?

If anything, we should stimulate tough questions and tough discussions. Get politicians on the record on as many issues as possible BEFORE they run for office. Imagine the what if's if somebody had a good long heart-to-heart with GWB on national TV BEFORE the primaries in 2000. Such things should be required in this day and age of consummate weasels and spinmeisters. Let's take full advantage of modern audio-visual recording technology!

Molon Labe
April 7, 2006, 09:36 PM
(deleted)

Maxwell
April 7, 2006, 10:02 PM
I think Rice should be asked exactly what she meant.

Journalists are not pro-gun nor miltia friendly.
They will think she meant literaly what she said, hope you do too, and have no interest in pushing the matter for a clear response.

LAK
April 8, 2006, 01:07 PM
Something odd about "armed political parties" or "groups". Since just about anyone that has a particular point of view about anything is going to support or associate themselves with one or another "political party". So reading between the lines here I think the pressure is on to disarm Iraqis in general.

When it comes down to brass tacks; unless each party has an official and verifable list of "members" - or they all wear some kind of unique and exclusive lapel pin - who is going to receive that great monopoly stick of state power and decide whether this or that person can own and carry a firearm?

-------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LoadAmmo
April 8, 2006, 01:13 PM
How dare you criticize Rice, you must be a racist bigot neo-Nazi skinhead from Northern Idaho.

Just kidding...

But really, this administration is the most fascist, communistic scum sucking group of thugs that make Klinton and his cronies look like puppy dogs.

Let's just pray there's not another false flag terror attack that gives them an excuse for overt Dictatorship

RealGun
April 8, 2006, 01:32 PM
How dare you criticize Rice, you must be a racist bigot neo-Nazi skinhead from Northern Idaho.

Just kidding...

But really, this administration is the most fascist, communistic scum sucking group of thugs that make Klinton and his cronies look like puppy dogs.

Let's just pray there's not another false flag terror attack that gives them an excuse for overt Dictatorship - LoadAmmo

Who did you vote for in the last Presidential election, or aren't you old enough?

LoadAmmo
April 8, 2006, 01:38 PM
I'm old enough to realize it doesn't make a dimes difference in the long run.

YES it's great the AWB expired, that's our only victory and a great one. But what Bush has done is unforgivable.

I bet you don't think the Republicans will sell us out on Immigration either will ya?

Both parties are filled to the brim with Treasonous Traitors.

Those who can think for themselves and don't let the talking heads on television think for them know the only solution is eventual revolution - which is a couple decades in the making...

Or you can just keep voting your way into slavery, it's your choice.

longeyes
April 8, 2006, 01:46 PM
There has been a slow and steady erosion of gun rights to be sure, like the GCA of 1968 and the Bush Senior rifle importation ban, but there have also been gains. Look how many states have passed "shall-issue" handgun carry laws since the Assault Weapon Ban was put in place. We can't quit fighting, but in regards to Second Amendment rights, we have had more gains than losses in the past decade.

All of which can be wiped away with one draconian scrawl of The Pen.

"They" are waiting, that's all, waiting.

beerslurpy
April 8, 2006, 02:04 PM
I disagree with c_yeager.

Rice exposed the fact that we are trying to subdue Iraq. Subjegation and freedom are mutually exclusive goals. We want Iraqis to be free to the extent that they will not use that freedom to work against American interests.

Similarly, in America, our freedom is allowed to manifest itself in ways that are largely irrelevant. But god forbid populism happens to turn against the interests of big business or big government. Then we start to hear politicians decrying the recklessness of the electorate.

Ultimately the Iraqis will see that their interests are being subverted to those of the US and will either elect leaders that favor Iraqi interests OR the US will impose US friendly leaders upon the iraqi people. Imposed leaders will ultimately be unpopular and have to resort to anti-democratic means to retain power.

geekWithA.45
April 8, 2006, 02:23 PM
I mentioned this elsewhere online, but my take on the matter is that the context provides the critical illumination with which to interpret these comments.

The police that are currently fielded are sectarian and infiltrated. As such, they do not carry the universal public trust and respect that is necessary for a police force to carry out their duty of creating and preserving the public peace.

She's pissed that the non sectarian forces that are not tainted and _could_ gain and retain the public trust are not being fielded.

As a result of this, there is a power vacuum created by the general failure to create the public peace. In this context, the middle eastern version of the Hatfields and McCoys play out their centuries old blood feud.

I think Rice is more interested in establishing a strong, fair and universally respected civil police than in repudiating anything, or disarming anyone.


I would also refer members to many posts that took place during Al-Sadr's brief reign in the graveyard, and the Fallujah insurgency, concerning the abuse of the term "militia" to describe quasi organized para military sectarian/partisan thuggery.

A true militia serves the common defense, the common good, and the cause of justice for all. An armed group that serves anything less is not a true militia, it is a degenerate case.

I'm inclined to believe she chose her words poorly. I see this as more about establishing bona fide justice through a strong and impartial civil mechanism than as a statement of statism.

Why do we respect the Texas Rangers?

They're strong. They're fair. They're not corrupt. They serve the peace, the common good, and the cause of justice for all.

beerslurpy
April 8, 2006, 03:20 PM
Geek, I disagree.

One of the main purposes of a militia is to prevent authorities from controlling local groups through force. That the local militia would take up arms against a force it perceives as acting against its interests is not really inconsistent with the idea of a militia. It forces "proper authorities" to work out a compromise with that local group instead of mounting a costly campaign to coerce them. This is more of a design feature than a bug. *marks As Designed and closes*

This is one of the hazards inherent in dissolving a strong central government- strong central governments allow hostile groups to cohabitate without friction, but when you take that away, chaos results because there are no institutional means for groups to resolve their differences without breaking out the ammo.

DKSuddeth
April 8, 2006, 07:24 PM
Dr. Rice isn't any different than anybody else in the government. The government is not our friend and seeks to disarm us, divide us, and conquer us as quietly as possible.

progunner1957
April 8, 2006, 07:35 PM
"You can't have in a democracy various groups with arms - you have to have the state with a monopoly on power," Condoleeza Rice, the US secretary of state, said at the end of her two-day visit to Baghdad yesterday.

That's fine - as long as she was referring to Iraq and not the United States, which I believe she was.

Here is what she said in reference to our right to arms here in the United States:Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, recalling how her father took up arms to defend fellow blacks from racist whites in the segregated South, said Wednesday the constitutional right of Americans to own guns is as important as their rights to free speech and religion.

progunner1957
April 8, 2006, 07:46 PM
And what do you think the militia at Concord was doing?
Rebelling against a government.
Rebelling against a government that they did not elect and did not want; rebelling against a government that followed them here from Britan to try to establish arbitrary and oppressive rule over the colonists against their will.

In other words, they were rebelling against an illegitimate and unlawful government - which means that their rebellion was both legitimate and lawful.
The British were trying to create and maintain such a monopoly by disarming the colonists at Lexington and Concord. The Weimar Republic also established such a monopoly.

Read the Federalist no. 46 to see what the Founding Fathers thought of the State having a monopoly of force.
Roger that!:D

Johnnybgood
April 8, 2006, 08:20 PM
Take Condi over Hillary any day!

If you enjoyed reading about "Strange comments from Rice re:"militia" role" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!