DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on July 02, 2007, 02:46:12 PM
-
MR. RUSSERT: And joining us now is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Good morning and welcome.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Good morning, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: As you well know, you have issued subpoenas on the Bush White House regarding the eavesdropping, wiretapping put in place by the president after September 11th. Critics this morning will say, senator, that this plan is so essential to monitoring contacts between international terrorists and people here in the United States that subpoenas now is very, very counterproductive and could affect our anti-terrorism situation.
SEN. LEAHY: Well, of course, that?s the kind of talking point that the White House has tried to put out, and they, the White House has chosen confrontation over cooperation. I think that?s unfortunate. Nobody on my committee, Republican or, or Democrat, is trying to subpoena the operations of what?s been done in wiretapping terrorists. And I was a prosecutor for eight years. I believe in going after criminals, terrorists or anything else. Use wiretaps, use search warrants, whatever. What we?re asking is, what was the legal justification they tried to follow, when, for years, they were wiretapping ordinary Americans and everybody else without a warrant. We have a FISA court. We can, we can redesign the FISA law, if need be, if they need help to go after terrorists.
MR. RUSSERT: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT, FISA.
SEN. LEAHY: Yes. And, and, and moot to that, I mean, everybody wants us to get somebody who wants to strike at the United States.
MR. RUSSERT: So you have no problem with the plan of eavesdropping as such?
SEN. LEAHY: Provided it follows the law. What I don?t want is this open-ended idea that they had at the White House, until the press found out about it, which would allow, for example, if they didn?t like some comment that you made on NBC, they could then go without any warrant, wiretap your phone, check out your bank account, surveil you. Well, we don?t want that in America.
MR. RUSSERT: Even if I had no contact with someone overseas?
SEN. LEAHY: Even if you had no contact with someone overseas under the broad way that they were talking about. So what, what we?ve asked is, what was their legal justification for it? Their answers, as we?ve asked these questions, as the press has asked these questions, has changed so many times, some of it in testimony under oath, we?d kind of like to find out what is the basic reason for it. And we will work with them. I?ve talked to Senator Rockefeller, who?s a chairman of the Intelligence Committee. We will work with whatever changes are needed in the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, so there?d be no question you can go after potential terrorists with wiretaps and all. But we?ll do it with a check and balance. I don?t want us to ever go back to the situation that we had 30 years ago when we put into place this FISA court, as you called it, where they were wiretapping somebody who disagreed with the government on the Vietnam war. In this case, somebody disagrees with the administration on the Iraq war, under their broad views, you could just go in and wiretap them. This, this is America. This is not a, this is not a dictatorship.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19508551/page/2/
-
The die is cast.
Let's see who blinks.
-
Strange how the eavesdropping on suspected foreign terrorists has yet to be judicially reprimanded. Strange how the program still hasn't had 1 legal ruling of being deemed unconstitutional. Strange how all my rights are still grounded on my side, though the effort to repeal them layer by layer over the last half century hasn't gone unnoticed.
And yet the hyperbolic cries of "dictatorship" still sewer the arena we used to call civil dialogue >:(
-
While dictatorship is certainly hyperbole, I think throwing individuals in prison for years without charges or any legal recourse is definitely a poor testament to a nation that is supposedly built on the concepts of freedom and liberty.
The constitution was definitely urinated on with that decision.
-
While dictatorship is certainly hyperbole, I think throwing individuals in prison for years without charges or any legal recourse is definitely a poor testament to a nation that is supposedly built on the concepts of freedom and liberty. The constitution was definitely urinated on with that decision.
Ahh, so your saying that when we detained axis soldiers for years after their capture in WWII, we were "urinating on the Constitution." Gotcha
-
Ahh, so your saying that when we detained axis soldiers for years after their capture in WWII, we were "urinating on the Constitution." Gotcha
I'm not even sure that merits a response.
We've let a number of the detainees go after years of imprisonment with nothing more than a half-ass apology. They did nothing to warrant such treatment. Nothing.
Of course you know the difference between that and Germand and Japanese soldiers with whom we were at war.
-
Ahh, so your saying that when we detained axis soldiers for years after their capture in WWII, we were "urinating on the Constitution." Gotcha
You realize of course that those soldiers were prisoners of war and were treated accordingly. Something we refuse to do for the "enemy combatants". You do comprehend the difference there, right?
-
Ahh, so your saying that when we detained axis soldiers for years after their capture in WWII, we were "urinating on the Constitution." Gotcha
We've let a number of the detainees go after years of imprisonment with nothing more than a half-ass apology. They did nothing to warrant such treatment. Nothing.
Detaining is hardly this massive claim of mistreatment. There were likely WWII folks detained who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Likely even detained thru-out the war. Doesn't excuse the fact it was done, simply that it likely did happen, and those innocently detained is truely unfortunate. Yet my original query remains valid. You believe we were "urinating on the Constitution" when we indefinately held all those soldiers?? Because if not, I'm noting a distinct double standard you seem to be applying
Of course you know the difference between that and Germand and Japanese soldiers with whom we were at war.
The difference being that in this war, the enemy aren't wearing the same uniforms. Otherwise, there's pretty much no difference between "the soldiers"
Ahh, so your saying that when we detained axis soldiers for years after their capture in WWII, we were "urinating on the Constitution." Gotcha
You realize of course that those soldiers were prisoners of war and were treated accordingly. Something we refuse to do for the "enemy combatants". You do comprehend the difference there, right?
Those POW were treated according to the Geneva Convention, which applied to uniformed soldiers representative of a specific country. Last time I checked, AlQeada and Militant Islamofascists neither wear the same uniform nor represent any specific country, thus the term enemy combatants. You do comprehend the difference, right?
-
Those POW were treated according to the Geneva Convention, which applied to uniformed soldiers representative of a specific country. Last time I checked, AlQeada and Militant Islamofascists neither wear the same uniform nor represent any specific country, thus the term enemy combatants. You do comprehend the difference, right?
Yes, I understand the difference, but do you? I realize we have conveniently set aside all "enemy combatants" as unworthy of basic things like being charged or having legal council or even seeing the evidence against them because we have decided to call them something other than "prisoners of war" or even just "criminals". As if a lack of a term or a uniform makes them something less than human beings. But that isn't what I was talking about.
You're trying to compare the treatment of prisoners of war to the treatment of "enemy combatants" as if they are equal things. Clearly, and even your own words highlight this, they are not equal. So suggesting there is some how a double standard to complain about indefinite incarceration of "enemy combatants" but not about the imprisonment of prisoners of war is ridiculous.
Again, I understand the difference, but do you?
-
Those POW were treated according to the Geneva Convention, which applied to uniformed soldiers representative of a specific country. Last time I checked, AlQeada and Militant Islamofascists neither wear the same uniform nor represent any specific country, thus the term enemy combatants. You do comprehend the difference, right?
Yes, I understand the difference, but do you?
YES. Geneva Convention pretty much applying to uniformed enemy combatants. Those that have chosen not to abide by the Geneva convention of warfare, not be a uniformed member of a country's standing army, do not get the luxury of the Geneva Convention applied to them
I realize we have conveniently set aside all "enemy combatants" as unworthy of basic things like being charged or having legal council or even seeing the evidence against them because we have decided to call them something other than "prisoners of war" or even just "criminals". As if a lack of a term or a uniform makes them something less than human beings. But that isn't what I was talking about.
Not really, but I concede that those who act out as Islamofascist terrorists, such as AlQeada, targeting & killing innocent women & children don't get my stamp of appoval for them to be treated much more than the enemy combatants they have been designated as. They frequently hide amongst civilians putting them at grave risk for collateral death, hold themselves up in Mosques, when they're not blowing them up. And I can't help but recollect that recent story of members of AlQeada/Taliban who attempted to persuade some child to "open up his bag full of butterflies" as soon as he got close to a bunch of U.S. soldiers. The bag of course being a bomb pack. It's quite simple Prince, folks like these get no more sympathy from me than a child rapist. I have NO problems with them being detained indefinately, so long as they're out of the picture in trying to kill not just our soldiers and civilians, but Muslim children as well.
You're trying to compare the treatment of prisoners of war to the treatment of "enemy combatants" as if they are equal things. Clearly, and even your own words highlight this, they are not equal.
Yes, I do believe I've made that reference numerous times. The former were enemy soldiers who were fighting for a specific country. That latter are enemy soldiers who have no specific country they fight for, merely the notion of a global Muslim world. They are soldiers none the less, in a war with the U.S. And when caught should be detained until the duration of the conflict is completed
Again, I understand the difference, but do you?
Yes....exquisately.
-
It's quite simple Prince, folks like these get no more sympathy from me than a child rapist.
No one is asking you to have sympathy for them. And I should note that even people accused of pedophile rape get charged and legal council and a chance to examine the evidence against them. I see no reason why should not do the same for people accused of terrorism.
-
It's quite simple Prince, folks like these get no more sympathy from me than a child rapist.
No one is asking you to have sympathy for them. And I should note that even people accused of pedophile rape get charged and legal council and a chance to examine the evidence against them. I see no reason why should not do the same for people accused of terrorism.
Since indefinate detainment of soldiers and their collaborators accused of acts of aggression and warfare during WWII was a go, again, I have no problem with these uniformed enemy soldiers who are accused of terrorism, also being detained. As long as their off the battlefield
-
If all "enemy combatants" were captured as prisoners of war in all but name and then treated like prisoners of war, I might be more inclined to agree with you, Sirs. But they aren't, and I'm not.
-
Detaining is hardly this massive claim of mistreatment. There were likely WWII folks detained who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Likely even detained thru-out the war. Doesn't excuse the fact it was done, simply that it likely did happen, and those innocently detained is truely unfortunate. Yet my original query remains valid. You believe we were "urinating on the Constitution" when we indefinately held all those soldiers?? Because if not, I'm noting a distinct double standard you seem to be applying
The only double standard here is coming from you.
1. They are not treated as POW's, so you can stop pretending that their is any similarity between the two.
2. Offenders receive legal counsel, the right to see their accusers, a fair trial, and other basic human rights. That includes Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Tracy Housel, John Elliot, Karl and Walter LaGrand, Andrea Hicks Jackson, Odell Barnes, etc.
3. We have released 340 of the 775 detainees. Of the remaining 435, 110 are scheduled for release and 70 will face some sort of trial (the details of which are unknown). The remainder...well, who knows?
So let's look at your comment: There were likely WWII folks detained who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You are implying that some of the detainees were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. An accident of fate. Oops! That might be believable if 58% weren't released! Do you think of the World War II POW's we captured that 58% weren't really Axis soldiers?!?
I know you are more intelligent than that Sirs. By the way, that 58% is conservative because that implies that the entire remainder including that 70 that face trial are all guilty of being al-Qaeda terrorists. It may be a far higher percentage than that.
We have stolen years from some of these people, who have families. Others were 12 or 13 years old when we arrested them. But keep on telling yourself how this all fits in neatly with the constitution. I'm sure millions of people under hundreds of constitutions throughout history have made the same justifications for all sorts of terrible atrocities.
The difference being that in this war, the enemy aren't wearing the same uniforms. Otherwise, there's pretty much no difference between "the soldiers"
Look up internment. Then look up Operation Demetrius. You'll see why this policy is a failure.
They'll catch a few authentic terrorists, but it won't make up for the ones we'll create through this very process.
(http://www.theworld.org/files/images/Compound_19.preview.JPG)
(http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060731/060731_guantanamo_12p.widec.jpg)
-
1. They are not treated as POW's, so you can stop pretending that their is any similarity between the two.
Yes, they are, but I concede to a point. Since they aren't uniformed nor represent a specific country, these SOLDIERS don't fall under the spefics of the Geneva Convention
2. Offenders receive legal counsel, the right to see their accusers, a fair trial, and other basic human rights. That includes Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Tracy Housel, John Elliot, Karl and Walter LaGrand, Andrea Hicks Jackson, Odell Barnes, etc.
You're referring to American criminals, NOT foreign soldiers Js. Apples & Oranges
3. We have released 340 of the 775 detainees. Of the remaining 435, 110 are scheduled for release and 70 will face some sort of trial (the details of which are unknown). The remainder...well, who knows?
And.................? Appears to me enough inveistigation was performed to determine that they were either not soldiers or that they provided enough information to be deemed no longer a threat
So let's look at your comment: There were likely WWII folks detained who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You are implying that some of the detainees were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. An accident of fate. Oops! That might be believable if 58% weren't released! Do you think of the World War II POW's we captured that 58% weren't really Axis soldiers?!?
The uniform was a big help
The difference being that in this war, the enemy aren't wearing the same uniforms. Otherwise, there's pretty much no difference between "the soldiers"
Look up internment. Then look up Operation Demetrius. You'll see why this policy is a failure.
Were not simply rounding up Muslims Js. These folks were taken to Gitmo (and elsewhere) because they were either caught while trying to kill our soldiers, while assisting the enemy, or in an area that was rounded up as a suspected terror cell. Let's be honest here, this is NOTHING like what we were doing with Asian-looking people during WWII
And these SOLDIERS who've been rounded & taken off the battlefield up are still provided 3 meals a day AND their own Korans AND multiple times to pray AND many other perks I'm not sure I'd have provided those who've sworn an oath to kill the great satan.
-
You're referring to American criminals, NOT foreign soldiers Js. Apples & Oranges
You're wrong. Some of those I mentioned were foreigners, executed in the United States.
The uniform was a big help
In other words your comparison with World War II POW's was a load of shit.
And these SOLDIERS who've been rounded & taken off the battlefield up are still provided 3 meals a day AND their own Korans AND multiple times to pray AND many other perks I'm not sure I'd have provided those who've sworn an oath to kill the great satan.
You mean these SOLDIERS who were sworn to kill Americans...where the MAJORITY have been realeased because they DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG????
Let's be honest here, this is NOTHING like what we were doing with Asian-looking people during WWII
I never brought that up.
-
You're referring to American criminals, NOT foreign soldiers Js. Apples & Oranges
You're wrong. Some of those I mentioned were foreigners, executed in the United States.
For what?? You saying they were working for some international terrorist organization, analogous to AlQeada?
The uniform was a big help
In other words your comparison with World War II POW's was a load of shit.
What the frell? You keep brining up how so many have been released now compared to WWII detainees, and I give a perfectly rational reason why, and that translates in some mutation of your above sentence??
And these SOLDIERS who've been rounded & taken off the battlefield up are still provided 3 meals a day AND their own Korans AND multiple times to pray AND many other perks I'm not sure I'd have provided those who've sworn an oath to kill the great satan.
You mean these SOLDIERS who were sworn to kill Americans...where the MAJORITY have been realeased because they DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG????
No, I mean the soldiers that are still being detained, not the ones they determined not to have or at least no longer a threat to our soldiers. It is a whole hell of a lot more difficult when our current enemy disguises themselves to look just like the civilians. Pretty cowardly act, yet Tee calls our soldiers the cowards. Go figure
Let's be honest here, this is NOTHING like what we were doing with Asian-looking people during WWII
I never brought that up.
Then why the reference to internment camps ala the Japaneses in WWII??
-
Actually under the rules of war, these folks should be shot as spies where and when they are found. It certainly would alleviate all the whining from the "Rights for Terrorists" crowd.
-
<<Actually under the rules of war, these folks should be shot as spies where and when they are found. It certainly would alleviate all the whining from the "Rights for Terrorists" crowd.>>
At least it would be more humane than torturing them.
And they could return the favour to captured Americans, too.
Might start a whole new trend in urban guerrilla warfare: Take No Prisoners! The Geneva Convention for the 21st Century!
-
To apply the Geneva convention as it stands would indeed have us executeing a lot of these guys for fighting out of uniform.
Is that really a good idea?
And they could return the favour to captured Americans, too.
Why is that an issue?
Don't we expect them to treat their captives very badly ,with few exceptions, no matter what we do?
-
And they could return the favour to captured Americans, too.
Why is that an issue? Don't we expect them to treat their captives very badly ,with few exceptions, no matter what we do?
Precisely
-
To apply the Geneva convention as it stands would indeed have us executeing a lot of these guys for fighting out of uniform.
Does it? Can you show me where?
And they could return the favour to captured Americans, too.
Why is that an issue?
Don't we expect them to treat their captives very badly ,with few exceptions, no matter what we do?
Why is that an issue? Well, speaking from my own perspective, seems to me the issue is that we're supposed to be better than they are. Aren't we supposed to be in a war against terrorism? Seems kinda odd to be at war with them over their actions and yet act in a similar manner. Is a bloodthirsty kill-'em-all plan of action what you really want to see? You think they're mad at us now, just wait till we start shooting them without trials. If you want to go that route, then we need to abandon the notion of a "war on terror" and send in some General Sherman type to raze their cities to the ground. If we're going to maintain a "war on terror" then we really ought to try to have higher standards than the terrorists, don't you think?
And please don't anyone tell me shooting them is okay because they're chopping off heads or some such. If you're at the slightly shallower end of the hole, and they're at the deeper end of the hole, both of you are still in the hole and claiming the high ground isn't going to mean squat, diddly-squat or even diddly-doo.
-
For what?? You saying they were working for some international terrorist organization, analogous to AlQeada?
I don't recall saying that. I believe they were tried for murder.
What the frell? You keep brining up how so many have been released now compared to WWII detainees, and I give a perfectly rational reason why, and that translates in some mutation of your above sentence??
No. You compared the prisoners in Guantanamo to the POW's of World War II and how some must have been taken by accident (an assertion for which you never provided evidence). Clearly the comparison is based on a false premise. Just saying, "uniforms helped" does not make your initial comparison worthy.
No, I mean the soldiers that are still being detained, not the ones they determined not to have or at least no longer a threat to our soldiers. It is a whole hell of a lot more difficult when our current enemy disguises themselves to look just like the civilians. Pretty cowardly act, yet Tee calls our soldiers the cowards. Go figure
Get off your high horse. We had people do the exact same thing in the American Revolution. We had people bully civilian populations and execute those who did not agree (they were called loyalists). Funny how it was acceptable then and we make our "patriots" out to be heroes, but today it is "cowardly" and "evil." ;)
Then why the reference to internment camps ala the Japaneses in WWII??
Internment, as in Operation Demetrius. I was not referencing the Japanese internment of World War II.
-
For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatants)
These insurgents/terrorists do no obey the rules of war, therefore we are not bound to do so. However, we do go far beyond anything a country at war ought to do for these criminals.
The article states:
"Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope."
-
These insurgents/terrorists do no obey the rules of war, therefore we are not bound to do so. However, we do go far beyond anything a country at war ought to do for these criminals.
I disagree on both counts. As I understand this, if they are not prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention, then they are civilians under the Fourth Geneva Convention and should therefore be tried as civilians, not held indefinitely.
But again, are we or are we not supposedly involved in a "war on terror"? If we are, then it hardly behooves us to blur the line between our actions and theirs. If the people we have captured are genuinely terrorists and/or terrorist supporters, then we ought to be lining them up for trials to provide the evidence that convicts them so that the whole world will know who these people are and what they have done.
-
For what?? You saying they were working for some international terrorist organization, analogous to AlQeada?
I don't recall saying that. I believe they were tried for murder.
Then I have no idea the relevence of why you threw their names up here then. ???
You compared the prisoners in Guantanamo to the POW's of World War II and how some must have been taken by accident. Clearly the comparison is based on a false premise. Just saying, "uniforms helped" does not make your initial comparison worthy.
It makes an absolutely valid and logical point in that an enemy in uniform provides a pretty darn good indication that they are indeed the enemy, thus very few of them detained were released. The fact that many more detained at gitmo during our current war on terror and on Islamofascism, can be directly tied to the fact that this enemy doesn't wear a uniform, and specfically hides amongst the civilian population. Why this concept is so hard for you to grasp, si beyond me.
No, I mean the soldiers that are still being detained, not the ones they determined not to have or at least no longer a threat to our soldiers. It is a whole hell of a lot more difficult when our current enemy disguises themselves to look just like the civilians. Pretty cowardly act, yet Tee calls our soldiers the cowards. Go figure
Get off your high horse. We had people do the exact same thing in the American Revolution. We had people bully civilian populations and execute those who did not agree (they were called loyalists). Funny how it was acceptable then and we make our "patriots" out to be heroes, but today it is "cowardly" and "evil."
Umm last time I checked, those "Loyalists" you referred to neither targeted innocent women & children, nor used them as human shields. and those that did were absolutely being cowardly and no patriot in my book. Thus your "cowardly" comparison is up a creek without the preverbial paddle
Then why the reference to internment camps ala the Japaneses in WWII??
Internment, as in Operation Demetrius. I was not referencing the Japanese internment of World War II.
Once again......relevence?? Were soliders detained, or were whole hordes of people rounded up and detained? If the latter, how were they rounded up and why?
-
To apply the Geneva convention as it stands would indeed have us executeing a lot of these guys for fighting out of uniform.
Does it? Can you show me where?
And they could return the favour to captured Americans, too.
Why is that an issue?
Don't we expect them to treat their captives very badly ,with few exceptions, no matter what we do?
Why is that an issue? Well, speaking from my own perspective, seems to me the issue is that we're supposed to be better than they are. Aren't we supposed to be in a war against terrorism? Seems kinda odd to be at war with them over their actions and yet act in a similar manner. Is a bloodthirsty kill-'em-all plan of action what you really want to see? You think they're mad at us now, just wait till we start shooting them without trials. If you want to go that route, then we need to abandon the notion of a "war on terror" and send in some General Sherman type to raze their cities to the ground. If we're going to maintain a "war on terror" then we really ought to try to have higher standards than the terrorists, don't you think?
And please don't anyone tell me shooting them is okay because they're chopping off heads or some such. If you're at the slightly shallower end of the hole, and they're at the deeper end of the hole, both of you are still in the hole and claiming the high ground isn't going to mean squat, diddly-squat or even diddly-doo.
We are behaveing better without much effort.
If some of our guys get out of line they are liable to be caught and punished , who expects any such thing from them?
-
To apply the Geneva convention as it stands would indeed have us executeing a lot of these guys for fighting out of uniform.
Does it? Can you show me where?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Original_Geneva_Conventions.jpg/250px-Original_Geneva_Conventions.jpg)
Original document of the first Geneva Convention, 1864.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/EUgeneva.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/geneva-convention-rules.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war
Qualifications
To be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner of war status.
Specifically, Chapter II of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention covered the treatment of prisoners of war in detail. These were further expanded in the Third Geneva Convention of 1929, and its revision of 1949.
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his or her name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).
-
<<Get off your high horse. We had people do the exact same thing in the American Revolution. We had people bully civilian populations and execute those who did not agree (they were called loyalists). Funny how it was acceptable then and we make our "patriots" out to be heroes, but today it is "cowardly" and "evil.">>
EXCELLENT point. sirs knows next to nothing of the history of our Province of Ontario. (Not that I blame him - - compared to U.S. or British history, it's boring as hell and relatively unimportant.)
The Province of Ontario was formerly just the vast western uninhabited forest constituting "Canada," which was then what are now Ontario and Quebec. The only inhabitants of "Canada" were the French who lived in what is now Quebec. In the wake of the American Revolution, thousands of Loyalist refugees fled for their lives to Ontario, which in I think 1792 received its first British governor and finally had enough English inhabitants to be split off from "Canada" as a colony in its own right. "Canada" became "Upper Canada" and "Lower Canada" (now Ontario and Quebec) named for their positions relative to the flow of the St. Lawrence River.
The Loyalists who stayed behind suffered torture and murder at the hands of lynch mobs and vigilantes. The tortures included tarring and feathering (which sounds funny, until you realize that some of the victims actually died from the burns inflicted by the hot tar) and being "ridden out of town on a rail," again a fairly innocent-sounding procedure until you realize it was often done in a way that ensured the victim's testicles would be pounded by his own body weight onto the rail with every jolt that occurred as the rail was run out of town.
Loyalist culture isn't very strong in Toronto, which is reallly a city of much more recent immigrants, but in small-town Ontario, it's still an important element. Sorta like the Orange Lodge, only older. They have Loyalist Days and U.E.L. (United Empire Loyalists) events. And they know a lot about the American Revolution and what happened to those who didn't choose to join in.
-
<<Get off your high horse. We had people do the exact same thing in the American Revolution. We had people bully civilian populations and execute those who did not agree (they were called loyalists). Funny how it was acceptable then and we make our "patriots" out to be heroes, but today it is "cowardly" and "evil.">>
EXCELLENT point. sirs knows next to nothing of the history of our Province of Ontario. (Not that I blame him - - compared to U.S. or British history, it's boring as hell and relatively unimportant.)
The Province of Ontario was formerly just the vast western uninhabited forest constituting "Canada," which was then what are now Ontario and Quebec. The only inhabitants of "Canada" were the French who lived in what is now Quebec. In the wake of the American Revolution, thousands of Loyalist refugees fled for their lives to Ontario, which in I think 1792 received its first British governor and finally had enough English inhabitants to be split off from "Canada" as a colony in its own right. "Canada" became "Upper Canada" and "Lower Canada" (now Ontario and Quebec) named for their positions relative to the flow of the St. Lawrence River.
The Loyalists who stayed behind suffered torture and murder at the hands of lynch mobs and vigilantes. The tortures included tarring and feathering (which sounds funny, until you realize that some of the victims actually died from the burns inflicted by the hot tar) and being "ridden out of town on a rail," again a fairly innocent-sounding procedure until you realize it was often done in a way that ensured the victim's testicles would be pounded by his own body weight onto the rail with every jolt that occurred as the rail was run out of town.
Loyalist culture isn't very strong in Toronto, which is reallly a city of much more recent immigrants, but in small-town Ontario, it's still an important element. Sorta like the Orange Lodge, only older. They have Loyalist Days and U.E.L. (United Empire Loyalists) events. And they know a lot about the American Revolution and what happened to those who didn't choose to join in.
Yes , we picked up a lot of French (Acadian , Cajun) the same way.
-
<<Yes , we picked up a lot of French (Acadian , Cajun) the same way.>>
Not a single one of them was tortured or murdered by the British.
-
<<Yes , we picked up a lot of French (Acadian , Cajun) the same way.>>
Not a single one of them was tortured or murdered by the British.
Why not?
Wern't the British into arrogance and cruelty in those days?
-
<<Why not?
<<Wern't the British into arrogance and cruelty in those days?>>
I think most of them were pretty embarrassed by what they were doing. They knew it was wrong and the people the troops were evicting were pretty much like the kind of people they themselves came from. Simple farmers and townspeople.
Some of the Acadian towns on the north shore of Prince Edward Island were resettled in a few years. The settlers hid in the bush and the British didn't even bother to look for them.
"into arrogance and cruelty" is pretty much a meaningless statement. They had a lot of ideas about the world and their role in it and probably arrogance was a part of it but I don't know about cruelty. Of course their criminal law was very cruel, but it never involved torture (except for the executions of traitors) and it did not condone murder. The Acadians were certainly not considered criminals or traitors.
In any event, I'm not aware of any recorded circumstance of torture or murder of an Acadian by British troops in the course of the expulsions.
-
In any event, I'm not aware of any recorded circumstance of torture or murder of an Acadian by British troops in the course of the expulsions.
Well you wouldn't be would you?
-
<<Well you wouldn't be would you?>>
Are you aware of any such instances?
-
<<Well you wouldn't be [aware of torture of Acadians by British forces] would you?>>
I sure as hell would be. You should drive through the (formerly) Acadian villages of P.E.I. and Cape Breton Island. Every one of them has a big Acadian flag flying in front of some public building like a post office or fire hall and plenty of smaller Acadian flags on private residences as well. There wasn't a village anywhere we went that had not been at least partially re-settled by Acadians. These folks are very proud of their culture and very keenly aware of the injustices done to them. If there had been torture, you sure as hell would have heard of it by now, and you would have heard it first from them.
Why on earth would you think that while we know all about the atrocities committed by British troops in the Sepoy Rebellion in India, we would know absolutely nothing about atrocities (if any had occurred) committed by them right here at home?
These discussions are really great for me because I have come to see first-hand how Americans - - well, some Americans - - - (a) love to recount tales of sadistic cruelty carried out by everybody else whether any of it actually happened or not; (b) conveniently forget each and every one of their own examples of sadistic cruelty to others and (c) when they can't avoid the historical facts of what they've done, invent with absolutely no back-up evidence similar atrocities that they claim others much better than they are must have done. Hence we have the allegations that the American veterans of WWII were torturers and murderers (because the American vets of Viet Nam and Iraq were torturers and murderers); that the British who expelled the Cajuns must have tortured them (because the Americans who expelled the Loyalists tortured them.)
You people really have to get over yourselves. Not only are you no better than anybody else, there are numerous historically documented events that would seem to indicate you have acted a lot worse than everybody else. The years of slavery and Jim Crow are excellent examples of all that. Your treatment of the Loyalists was much worse than the comparable British treatment of the Acadians, except that there were no mass expulsions. (How could there be when they were all from the same ethnicity and probably related to one another by blood and marriage?) The most irritating part of these discussions is the assumption that you are somehow fooling the rest of the world. Just how fucking stupid do you think we are, anyway?
-
Loyalist suppression in the South was nasty as well. The people who were "fighting for liberty" would destroy loyalist newspapers and imprison anyone who was a vocal loyalist. That included tarring and feathering as Michael mentioned, or outright torture and in a few cases summary execution. The term "Lynch Mob" came from two patriots in Virginia, one a judge and the other an officer who decided that trials weren't necessary for loyalists.
The British agreed to mostly favorable terms with the Americans at the end of the war primarily out of concern for the loyalists, who feared for their very lives (women, children, and men). Loyalist land was confiscated by colonies (states) before the war was over and the owners were not compensated. Some later sued and got small compensation, a fraction of the value. Many times the homes were already burned down.
Wern't the British into arrogance and cruelty in those days?
LOL...no more than the Patriots.
The war was never between a group of liberty-loving idealogues against a monster tyrannical regime of British evildoers.
-
You people really have to get over yourselves. Not only are you no better than anybody else, there are numerous historically documented events that would seem to indicate you have acted a lot worse than everybody else.
And yet you and others think we should be held to a higher standard, that somehow we should know better.
That it is a failure of leadership of this administration, even though the record shows that we have behaved badly since the revolution and most probably before.
-
You people really have to get over yourselves. Not only are you no better than anybody else, there are numerous historically documented events that would seem to indicate you have acted a lot worse than everybody else.
And yet you and others think we should be held to a higher standard, that somehow we should know better. That it is a failure of leadership of this administration, even though the record shows that we have behaved badly since the revolution and most probably before.
BDS :-\
-
We are behaveing better without much effort.
If some of our guys get out of line they are liable to be caught and punished , who expects any such thing from them?
I'm still not sure why we keep comparing ourselves to the terrorists and saying "See, they're worse; aren't we great?" It's kinda like a person with a height of 5 feet claiming to be tall because he's taller than someone with a height of 4 feet. Actually it's worse than that because some folks keep trying to argue that we're being too nice and that because the terrorists do this or that, then we have no reason to not do the same sort of thing. It's like saying the terrorists are bad so we should be bad too.
Which takes me back to my point. We might be behaving better than terrorists now, but Richpo is arguing that we should just shoot these people. And you're asking why we should care what sort of repercussions that might have among the terrorists. I'm thinking, if we're going to advocate shooting people we ought to have some notion of what might be the consequences of that course of action. And, of course, if we're just going to start shooting terror suspects when we find them, then perhaps we ought to also stop acting like we're engaged in a "war on terror". If you want to play this hard, okay, but let's not lie about what we're doing.
-
To apply the Geneva convention as it stands would indeed have us executeing a lot of these guys for fighting out of uniform.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/EUgeneva.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/geneva-convention-rules.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war
Qualifications
To be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner of war status.
Specifically, Chapter II of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention covered the treatment of prisoners of war in detail. These were further expanded in the Third Geneva Convention of 1929, and its revision of 1949.
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his or her name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).
I am having a bit of trouble find the part of the Geneva Convention that says combatants out of uniform should be executed. Perhaps you could point that out to me.
-
I think there's a big disconnect between American idealism and American conduct.
BT seems to think that there's a disconnect between someone who condemns the conduct but upholds the ideals.
Judging American conduct, they have behaved very badly. It's really offensive to see them pointing condemnatory fingers at others because they just don't have the right any more. Worse still when they condemn the British, whose conduct was almost always better than theirs in every way.
Yes, Americans SHOULD be held to a higher standard of conduct than Arabs, or even the British, because they have set a very high standard of ideals to live up to. And at the same time, they should not only be condemned for their crimes against humanity, but where they have acted worse than others in similar circumstances, that must be pointed out too.
BT sees some kind of inconsistency in all this. I wish he could show us what it is. Because I don't see any inconsistency at all.
-
Well..... it is kinda like condemning Christians as hypocrites when they don't walk the talk , when everyone knows church is for sinners.
-
<<Well..... it is kinda like condemning Christians as hypocrites when they don't walk the talk , when everyone knows church is for sinners.>>
Church is for the sinners in the congregation, not in the pulpit. The preacher is supposed to be the guy straightening the rest of them out. Why do you think there's so much contempt for fallen church leaders? Swaggart getting caught pants-down in a motel with a hooker is a much more serious transgression than one of his blue-collar constituents getting caught the same way.
People have to start demanding more from their leaders. This "we're all sinners" attitude doesn't cut it.
-
<<Well..... it is kinda like condemning Christians as hypocrites when they don't walk the talk , when everyone knows church is for sinners.>>
Church is for the sinners in the congregation, not in the pulpit.
WHAT? Church is for EVERYONE. EVERYONE is supposed to be the "guy straightening the rest of them out". That's the whole point of Church. NO ONE IS PERFECT, which includes the Minister. The Minister simply is the one leading everyone, but is by no means immune to being human and failing to "walk the talk". Obviously you have no concept of what church is
-
<<WHAT? Church is for EVERYONE. EVERYONE is supposed to be the "guy straightening the rest of them out". That's the whole point of Church. NO ONE IS PERFECT, which includes the Minister. The Minister simply is the one leading everyone, but is by no means immune to being human and failing to "walk the talk". Obviously you have no concept of what church is>>
Maybe I don't. If you're right, any dope-smoking, skirt-chasing whoremaster has as much right to lead the congregation as an upright solid citizen who spends every night at home with his wife and kids. I just don't think it happens like that. I mean if it happens at all, it's because the whoremaster sneaks in under the radar with everyone thinking he's a straight arrow. And as soon as he's found out, he's out on his ass. Nobody says, fuck it, we're all sinners here. That'd be absolutely nuts.
-
One of the main arguments against celibacy in the Catholic Church is that priests can't council married couples with any kind of credibility because they haven't been married themselves.
Ministers who counsel the addicted have much more street cred if they have been addicted themselves.
The whole 101st Fighting keyboardists slur is aimed at hawks who never served, so it follows that a leader of a congregation who has sinned and or faced temptation might just be more understanding of the human failings of others from that experience alone.
BTW i don't think there is a right involved in being chosen to lead a congregation. Methinks it might fall more in the realm of a privilege.
-
<<BTW i don't think there is a right involved in being chosen to lead a congregation. Methinks it might fall more in the realm of a privilege.>>
Of course. That was just sloppy writing on my part. But I still don't think there are too many congregations willing to be led or preached to regularly by a lying, thieving, whoring junkie on the theory that we're all sinners and this guy will understand us better. Just never happens.
-
Of course. That was just sloppy writing on my part. But I still don't think there are too many congregations willing to be led or preached to regularly by a lying, thieving, whoring junkie on the theory that we're all sinners and this guy will understand us better. Just never happens.
No, but they might take a chance on an ex-lying, thieving, whoring junkie and gamble he or she doesn't relapse.
It's about redemption, after all.
-
I still don't think there are too many congregations willing to be led or preached to regularly by a lying, thieving, whoring junkie on the theory that we're all sinners and this guy will understand us better. Just never happens.
No, but they might take a chance on an ex-lying, thieving, whoring junkie and gamble he or she doesn't relapse. It's about redemption, after all.
BINGO
-
That's certainly true. Saint Paul is a great example as is Saint Augustine.
The problem of course is that this isn't a country that has done this incredible soul searching and sought penance for past wrongdoing. Lest we forget that true penance and reconcilliation with Christ is the step in between the life of constant sin and redemption. You all seem to skip that step.
In history classes, especially in High School, the treatment of loyalists is rarely taught. Similar to the US and Phillipino guerilla war. The Revolutionary War (or American Revolution) is probably one of the most poorly taught subjects. It is almost parallel with mythology. France and Spain's role is almost always minimized. Often mentioned is the brave sacrifice of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Rarely mentioned is the sacrifice of the loyalists, who remained loyal to the rightful government. More than that, it is often never mentioned that many in the Continental Congress and American Officers engaged in outrageous profiteering during the war.
Moreover the reasons for the war are often obscured. We teach people that it was liberty, justice, the pursuit of happiness!! We often forget to mention that many of the wealthiest folks had very selfish reasons (Hancock for example was a wealthy smuggler). Also neglected is the British point of view.
I will say this though. A superpower status (though mostly paper tiger to be honest) will naturally create arrogance. For that America has been mostly restrained. I really can't think of many other countries that would do much better with it.
-
I ask for a "bill of particulars" on the mistreatment of loyalists, provisionally positing in its absence a lack of true atrocity but rather a mere presence of perhaps harsh but superrficially rational measures to blunt the impact of enemy sympathizers, through humane means such as closing newspapers and imprisoning the most recalcitrant and likely to engage in espionage, for example.
On the general topic of Americans "repenting" for true atrocities (sins) of the past, eschewing for diversity purposes JS's prescription of a confession to Christ and reconciliation with HIM, I nonetheless urge in the strongest possible terms that a true reconciliation with what we hold dear as a "faith nation" (to coin a phrase) be embarked upon to expiate, atone and renew in an exercise that in broad outline can be embraced as salutary by any faith, political ideology or personal psychology, all packaged as reffirming the bedrock principles that hold us together as a nation.
I caution that my fantastical prescription, if it gains any sort of political traction, must be able to shift on a dime, or better yet cohabitate ab initio and coextensively with a tough military vigilance, which will be essential to our legitimate national aims going forward by any sane reading of the prevailing geo-political circumstances.
-
<<No, but they might take a chance on an ex-lying, thieving, whoring junkie and gamble he or she doesn't relapse.>>
And then again they might not. If two preachers applied for the same job with similar resumes in hand, I think the guy without the lying, thieving, whoring junkie past might have an edge over the other guy. The lying, thieving etc. is not generally considered a positive resume builder, even in the theological field.
<<It's about redemption, after all.>>
Yeah, and I think redemption generally starts with expressions of remorse, repentance, apologies, the begging of forgiveness, renunciations of future acts of violence, recompense for the victims, etc.
Let me know when the U.S. decides to redeem itself. I won't hold my breath.
-
<<Why not?
<<Wern't the British into arrogance and cruelty in those days?>>
I think most of them were pretty embarrassed by what they were doing. They knew it was wrong and the people the troops were evicting were pretty much like the kind of people they themselves came from. Simple farmers and townspeople.
Some of the Acadian towns on the north shore of Prince Edward Island were resettled in a few years. The settlers hid in the bush and the British didn't even bother to look for them.
"into arrogance and cruelty" is pretty much a meaningless statement. They had a lot of ideas about the world and their role in it and probably arrogance was a part of it but I don't know about cruelty. Of course their criminal law was very cruel, but it never involved torture (except for the executions of traitors) and it did not condone murder. The Acadians were certainly not considered criminals or traitors.
In any event, I'm not aware of any recorded circumstance of torture or murder of an Acadian by British troops in the course of the expulsions.
This guy is still famous in this area (Georgia) "Tarltons quarter " was a phrase meaning no quarter .
http://jrshelby.com/kimocowp/tarlton.htm
"Tarleton holds the distinction of being the most hated British officer to serve during the Revolution. Though he was probably not as bad as reported, "Bloody Ban" made himself a useful propaganda figure for his enemies. There was certainly enough truth in the accusations to justify their use. "
...........
"His command, the "British" Legion, was composed mainly of American Loyalists from New York and Pennsylvania, who wore Green jackets to distinguish them as a Tory regiment. Tarleton took his responsibilities seriously, drilling the Legion until it was one of the most effective mounted units in the army. After serving with distinction in all the major engagements in New York and Pennsylvania, he was one of the officers selected to sail down the coast with Generals Clinton and Cornwallis for another try at Charleston. "
..........
"As Tarleton explained it, his horse was shot and pinned him underneath when it fell. The Legion, thinking their commander wounded under a flag of truce, were so enraged that they attacked Buford's men again, cutting and hacking every live body they could reach, even those bodies who were kneeling on the ground with their hands up. Patriots claimed that their enemies attacked under orders from Tarleton himself, who didn't want to bother with taking prisoners. However it began, the slaughter went on for at least fifteen minutes, during which Tarleton gained the reputation he would never lose: from then on, he would be known as "Bloody Ban" or "The Butcher." "Tarleton's Quarter" became a rallying cry for patriots throughout the south, who would use it more than once to justify some of their own butchery. There is no indication that the Colonel minded his nickname, and his commander never seriously questioned his tactics. Cornwallis used the British Legion as shock troops to harry and demoralize patriot resistance; they effectively "mopped up" after the battle of Camden by chasing after and cutting down the fleeing militia units.
On August 19, Tarleton scored a brilliant victory at Fishing Creek against General Thomas Sumter, who commanded an irregular army of 1000 volunteers. Following another breakneck chase through simmering heat, he caught up with Sumter after the general had set up camp and was taking it easy. Outnumbered again, this time four to one, Tarleton charged into the encampment and broke up the army so effectively it was thought they would never assemble again. What the British failed to recognize was that terror does not necessarily crush rebellion. Tarleton's dash-and-slash tactics worked against him when, on more than one occasion, his Legion attacked and slaughtered natives who turned out to be Tories. This was no way to keep friends, but neither Tarleton nor Cornwallis seemed to grasp that some diplomacy was necessary to make the best use of the many Loyalists scattered throughout the Carolinas. "
[][][][]][][][][][][][][][]
I don't know yet about anything like this in Canada , but one of the issues for the Americans before the war was the favored treatment Canadians were getting. I will have too look it up .
-
The guy sounds like a total idiot. However, there's a big difference between fighting rebels and traitors (as Tarleton saw them) and evicting innocent farmers who owed no allegiance to the Crown in the first place and were just basically living out their lives as peacefully as they could.
Tarleton, from what you yourself posted of him, didn't even torture the American Revolutionaries, why the hell would he want to torture the Acadians?
-
Well it isn't as bad as British behavior in India or Kenya seems a though many of the Acadians could have stayed if they were willing to swear and oath that was an anaethema to their religion.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
An Acadian delegation arrived in Halifax in 1755 with a petition to present to the lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia, Colonel Charles Lawrence. Lawrence demanded that they take the oath of allegiance; the petitioners refused and Lawrence had them imprisoned. Under pressure from the Province of Massachusetts Bay and the British admiral in Halifax, Lawrence ordered the mass deportation of the Acadians despite earlier cautions from British authorities against drastic action.
In what is known as the Great Expulsion (Grand D?rangement), more than 12,000 Acadians (three-fourths of the Acadian population in Nova Scotia) were expelled from the colony between 1755 and 1764. The British destroyed around 6,000 Acadian houses and dispersed the Acadians among the 13 colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia. Although there were no purposeful attempts to separate families, this did occur in the chaos of the eviction. Popular historian Tim Frink writes on the contrary that "the separation of the men from their families" indeed was purposefully planned and undertaken from the beginning of the upheaval. He adds "no effort was made to keep families together" (Frink, 1999). Members of the same family and community were sent to different colonies to impose assimilation.
The largest group of Acadians, 3,500, were sent to Poitou, France. Other groups were forcibly settled throughout North America: Qu?bec (2,000), Nova Scotia (1,249), Massachusetts (1,043), South Carolina (942), Maryland (810), Baie des Chaleurs (700), Connecticut (666), Pennsylvania (383), Ile Saint-Jean (300), Louisiana (300), North Carolina (280), New York (249), Georgia (185), and along the St. John River (86). Another 866 were sent to England.
Some Acadians escaped into the woods and lived with the Mi'kmaq; some bands of partisans fought the British, including a group led by Joseph Broussard, known as Beausoleil, along the Peticodiac River of New Brunswick. Some followed the coast northward, facing famine and disease. Some were recaptured, facing deportation or imprisonment at Fort Beausejour (renamed Fort Cumberland) until 1763.
The Acadians who were deported to what is now the United States were met by British colonists who treated them much like African slaves. Some Acadians became indentured servants. Massachusetts passed a law in November 1755 placing the Acadians under the custody of "justices of the peace and overseers of the poor"; Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Connecticut adopted similar laws. The Province of Virginia under Robert Dinwiddie initially agreed to resettle about one thousand Acadians who arrived in the colony but later ordered most deported to England, writing that the "French people" were "intestine enemies" that were "mudr'd and scalp'd our frontier settlers."
Other Acadians were deported to France, where many had to live in the slums of Nantes or on Belle-Isle off Brittany. The French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon near Newfoundland became a safe harbor for many Acadian families until they were once again deported by the British in 1778 and 1793.
After the end of the Seven Years War in 1763, Acadians were allowed to return to Nova Scotia as long as they did not settle in any one area in large numbers; they were not permitted to resettle in the areas of Port Royal or Grand-Pr?. Some Acadians resettled along the Nova Scotia coast and remain scattered across Nova Scotia to this day.
Many dispersed Acadians looked for other homes. Beginning in 1764, groups of Acadians began to arrive in Louisiana (which had been passed to Spanish control in 1762). They eventually became known as Cajuns.
See also:
Seven Years' War
Battle of the Plains of Abraham
Treaty of Paris 1763
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Acadians
-
The guy sounds like a total idiot. However, there's a big difference between fighting rebels and traitors (as Tarleton saw them) and evicting innocent farmers who owed no allegiance to the Crown in the first place and were just basically living out their lives as peacefully as they could.
Tarleton, from what you yourself posted of him, didn't even torture the American Revolutionaries, why the hell would he want to torture the Acadians?
No, he was just shooting them , dead seems to have been enough for him.
Notice that most of the time he was the commander of colonial loyalist troops , some of whom had to leave later.
-
http://www.acadian-home.org/Maryland-AcadiansInExile.html
Here is a good discussion of Acadia and British occupation .
The British seem to have been in an impossible situation , though they made a gift of good government to the French Canadans and assured them that they could keep their cultre intact there were many instances of terrorism and resistance , religious leaders stirred the faitfull to violence and insolence .
This rings a bell for me , what more recent event shares such features?
-
So, bottom line is, no comparison between Loyalist refugees from the American Revolution, who were tortured by the Americans, and Cajuns expelled by the British to the U.S.A., who were not tortured by the British.
Just as I thought. The British are basically good guys. In comparison to the Americans.
-
Just as I thought. The British are basically good guys. In comparison to the Americans.
Maybe the Brits knew better. Americans apparently didn't. Even way back then.
-
So, bottom line is, no comparison between Loyalist refugees from the American Revolution, who were tortured by the Americans, and Cajuns expelled by the British to the U.S.A., who were not tortured by the British.
Just as I thought. The British are basically good guys. In comparison to the Americans.
You can pick your instance and come up with anything. In Kenya and Ireland there was British torture from time to time. It seems that there isn't much complaint of such in Canada , tho there was a lot of complaining about being moved , the death and pain resulting were not worse than the Cherokee experience a few decades later in the "Trail of tears".
Is the subject primarly torture?
-
<<Is the subject primarly torture?>>
Not really - - this started out as an exchange between sirs, who felt the "cowardly" al Qaeda was bullying and executing noncompliant members of the civilian community and JS told him to get off his high horse because American Revolutionaries had done the same to Loyalists. I posted some stuff about Loyalists settling Ontario and you posted about Cajuns settling Louisiana. THEN it became about torture and murder, because the British expelled the Cajuns without torturing or murdering them (which you at first refused to accept) wherea there were instances of Loyalists being tortured and murdered by the Americans. Proving that the British were indisputably the better men.
-
<<Is the subject primarly torture?>>
Not really - - this started out as an exchange between sirs, who felt the "cowardly" al Qaeda was bullying and executing noncompliant members of the civilian community and JS told him to get off his high horse because American Revolutionaries had done the same to Loyalists. I posted some stuff about Loyalists settling Ontario and you posted about Cajuns settling Louisiana. THEN it became about torture and murder, because the British expelled the Cajuns without torturing or murdering them (which you at first refused to accept) wherea there were instances of Loyalists being tortured and murdered by the Americans. Proving that the British were indisputably the better men.
No, I can accept it , but I really didn't know till I looked.
One of the issues that was iritateing to the thirteen colonys was the way that Canada seemed to be getting prefrence , and that they were keeping the French system of laws which the colonys thought could become a pattern for repression elesewhere. There was a lot of suspicion that westward expantion would be slowed by the British goernment and that the border with Canada would be pretty far south.
I am pleasantly surprised that the Acadians got no torture but only forced exile and death or enslavement in unfreindy territorys , good show old chaps.
Tarlton was a harsh military commander who took few prisoners, but it was loyalists who made up the main part of his troop strength , when they went home after the war they were walking amoung the widows of the patriots , they didn't all get linched or leave and all the decendants of the ones that stayed are qualified for the DAR now.
-
<<One of the issues that was iritateing to the thirteen colonys was the way that Canada seemed to be getting prefrence , and that they were keeping the French system of laws which the colonys thought could become a pattern for repression elesewhere. There was a lot of suspicion that westward expantion would be slowed by the British goernment and that the border with Canada would be pretty far south.>>
You know, I think I mentioned before in this group that we had a full year of American history (in Grade 9) and studied the American Revolution very carefully (partly because it affected the way the British treated their Canadian colonies afterwards.) It was easy to see why Americans were so proud of their country and its achievements. Later on, I realized that we were being provided with a sugar-coated version of the real history, because we used an American textbook, "This Is America's Story." But they seem to have treated the Revolution fairly, with equal time for the Loyalists. From what I recall of the Revolution, the Canadian issues involved must have been very far down on the list of irritants leading up to the break. Taxation and lack of self-determination seemed to me to be the major issues and I would expect that Quebec's continued use of French law would have been a very divided issue since it didn't directly involve any Americans and probably seemed reasonable to as many of them as it did to the British politicians who approved it.
-
I ask for a "bill of particulars" on the mistreatment of loyalists, provisionally positing in its absence a lack of true atrocity but rather a mere presence of perhaps harsh but superrficially rational measures to blunt the impact of enemy sympathizers, through humane means such as closing newspapers and imprisoning the most recalcitrant and likely to engage in espionage, for example.
What would you like Domer?
For example, the Congress in New York allowed the delegation there to smoke in order that the gentlemen could maintain their health. Why? Because a few floors down, in the basement, there was an overcrowded prison of loyalists chained to the walls, some dead, others dying in their own feces and waste. The smell was overwhelming.
George Clinton, Continental Congressman and First Governor of New York had a brilliant way of keeping taxes down. He seized loyalist estates and sold them. 2 (http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/nsh/clinton.cfm)
Here's a list of 300 murdered loyalists from Charleston, SC 3 (http://sc_tories.tripod.com/list_of_murdered_loyalists.htm)
Estate confiscations in South Carolina 4 (http://sc_tories.tripod.com/royal_gazette_lists.htm)
Land confiscated in North Carolina 5 (http://members.aol.com/HoseyGen/NCLOYALB.HTML)
More land confiscated in North Carolina 6 (http://members.aol.com/HoseyGen/NCLOYAL6.HTML#Nash)
Lee writes from Suffolk, on April 23, that he is busy clearing the country of them and an overseer of the poor, in the county of Norfolk, speaks of the removal of a great many of the inhabitants with their families and goods. The confiscation of their estates made their departure profitable to the government and it was therefore not likely to be stopped. The sufferings of the Tories darken the pages of our revolutionary history. Men dreaded the power of their numbers, their wealth and their influence, and fear was quick to devise harsh measures. However successful its work along other lines, the Virginia committee, in ordering the removal of the Tories from Princess Anne and Norfolk Counties, must stand condemned both for want of judgment and of humanity.
From the Virginia Committee of Safety 7 (http://www.committee.org/PCOS31Virginia.htm)
James Allen, a conservative Pennsylvanian, writing in the period, said: "No country has ever been more harassed than Jersey. Those who are called Tories, though they have been passive, having been plundered and imprisoned without mercy."
He was speaking about the New Jersey Council of Safety 8 (http://www.committee.org/PCOS22NewJersey.htm)
The entire book is interesting and many people have no idea what the Committees of Safety were. In some colonies they were the defacto government, in others they had a small advisory role. They often contained the most radical Revolutionaries who wanted war with the British. In Pennsylvania, for example, the Committee of Safety often butted heads with the more moderate (and peaceful) Quaker population which became a large source of contention. In Connecticut the CoS was very tolerant of the Loyalists, whereas in Virginia they were repressed with a vengeance.
Thomas Brown was a loyalist landowner whom the Sons of Liberty burned, scalped, tarred and feathered - afterward he became a loyalist fighter. 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brown_(loyalist))
Here is the work of David Fanning, a Patriot who became a loyalist after being "exasperated by the outrage perpetrated by these desperadoes" 10 (http://andrewbalfour.com/Colonel%20Andrew%20Balfour/David%20Fanning's%20Narrative.htm)
Pennsylvania notably taxed and seized the land of Quakers, Mennonites, German Baptists, Moravians, and Schwenkfelders. Interestingly these groups rather enjoyed their lot under British rule where the Mennonites wrote in 1773 that "through God's mercy we enjoy unlimited freedom in both civil and religious matters." Yet, when the fight for liberty began Pennsylvania patriots enacted the extra taxes because these Christians refused to fight. They also refused the extra taxes, and their land was confiscated. Something the British never did. 11 (http://www.anabaptists.org/history/rev-war.html)
Now, none of this is to say that the British fought the war with kid gloves. Nor that there weren't legitimate griefs. Yet, I don't think all the measures were "rational." People have it in their mind that the American Revolution was Americans versus British. It wasn't. It was a Civil War and a very nasty and brutal one at that. The Americans and French versus British did play a major part in the war, but we very conveniently gloss over the civil war aspect so as to glorify the whole liberty, justice, etc spiel.
-
No, I can accept it , but I really didn't know till I looked.
One of the issues that was iritateing to the thirteen colonys was the way that Canada seemed to be getting prefrence , and that they were keeping the French system of laws which the colonys thought could become a pattern for repression elesewhere. There was a lot of suspicion that westward expantion would be slowed by the British goernment and that the border with Canada would be pretty far south.
I am pleasantly surprised that the Acadians got no torture but only forced exile and death or enslavement in unfreindy territorys , good show old chaps.
Tarlton was a harsh military commander who took few prisoners, but it was loyalists who made up the main part of his troop strength , when they went home after the war they were walking amoung the widows of the patriots , they didn't all get linched or leave and all the decendants of the ones that stayed are qualified for the DAR now.
Two points.
1. The reason Britain was restricting American expansion to the west is because it cost them a fortune to defend us. When we needed their help (French-Indian War) they came and helped us. Yet, they knew that westward expansion meant more of these wars with Indians and possibly again against the Spanish or French. Wars, as we all know, cost a hell of a lot of money. To make matters worse, when they tried to levy taxes on us (taxes that amounted to 1/26th of what the British taxpayer paid) we raised holy hell, although what they wanted was for us to pay for a small part of our own protection.
Now that stance can be argued, but that is the reason why the British wanted to restrict our access to the western territories. Protecting us was becoming a huge burden on the British Treasury.
2. Tarlton was an asshole, of that there is little doubt. But, you have to remember that loyalists in the South had been opressed and mistreated for a long time until the British took Charleston (by the way, Charleston was the worst defeat by the American military until Bataan). Plus, the Americans did the same thing at King's Mountain and other battles (often shouting "Tarleton's Quarter" when the gunned down surrendering soldiers). The most famous victim of that was British Captain Patrick Ferguson at kings Mountain, who once had the opportunity to shoot an American officer in the back with his rifle (thought to be General Washington) but chose not to out of the military chivalry of the day.
It was reported both by loyalists and patriots that Ferguson's corpse was violated after he was shot numerous times.