Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Strange comments from Rice re:"militia" role

Discussion in 'Legal' started by K-Romulus, Apr 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. K-Romulus

    K-Romulus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Somewhere in Monkey County, MD
    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

    What she said earlier:

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

     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2006
  2. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    A true State Department opinion. :rolleyes:
     
  3. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    And is the Iraqi police or army going to protect you?

    No, sadly.

    Neither are US troops or British troops
     
  4. Maxwell

    Maxwell Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    486
    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    The militias, same kind that the anti-guns feel are outdated in modern warfare, have been a pain in the ass to peacekeeping efforts.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.
     
  5. migoi

    migoi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    560
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I am under the opinion...

    that militias should NOT be obediant to the state but to the needs of the people.

    migoi
     
  6. seeker_two

    seeker_two Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,616
    Location:
    Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
    So much for the last, best hope against Hillary... :banghead:
     
  7. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    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.
     
  8. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    I doubt she has a problem with an AK in the house for self defense unlike Hillary.
     
  9. cosine

    cosine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Suburb of Milwaukee, WI
    I saw this comment posted on another forum:
    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.
     
  10. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,279
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    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
     
  11. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  12. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    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.
     
  13. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,279
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    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
     
  14. SSN Vet

    SSN Vet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,775
    Location:
    The Dark Side of the Moon
    different worlds...

    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).
     
  15. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    19,632
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    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
     
  16. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    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:

    It's that combination of ignorance and a belief in our own infallibility that gets us into things like this.

    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.

    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.
     
  17. Maxwell

    Maxwell Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    486
    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.
     
  18. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    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.
     
  19. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    As some people undoubtedly said in Germany, circa 1932...
     
  20. c_yeager

    c_yeager Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    Seattle
    Read what she said very carefully.

    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.
     
  21. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    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.
     
  22. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    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.
     
  23. seeker_two

    seeker_two Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,616
    Location:
    Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
    ...like GCA 1968?... :scrutiny:
     
  24. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    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.
     
  25. cosine

    cosine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Suburb of Milwaukee, WI
    C_yeager hit the nail on the head in post #20.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page