patrick wrote on October 27, 2009 10:58 AM: Winston:

Are you suggesting that any man who has written anything is forever to be bound to that?

I mean, you don't seriously believe that every time someone commits some words to paper that they hold those same opinions forever do you?

And, asserting that a man who writes something down even holds that belief when they wrote it is not consistent with human history and anyone today trying to filter out some absolute truth in what a man said 200 years ago or more is simply grasping at straws.

If you believe this so strongly Winston, I ask for your explanation of the writings of King Solomon in the Old Testament; did the jolly old king really mean what he said in (and its been awhile so if I get the chapter wrong and you know which one I'm referring to please correct me) Ephisians about the world being non-sense and that a man should do whatever a man wants to do whenever he wants to do it, and that this is the inspired word of our Lord?

Use the words as you wish Winston, but know that this is what you are doing and don't try to assert that the people who wrote them are "commanding" this result simply because they wrote some stuff down when they were drinking which they later regretted.

Winston Smith wrote on October 26, 2009 03:16 PM: Ahhhh, patrick. If we can't understand our Founders' beliefs by their written word, what else do we have? In spite of our Founders' flaws and imperfections, if their writings are not truly indicative of their thoughts, then why should we care about what anyone in history has written?

Western civilization rests on a belief system that most of us have bought into based primarily on the written philosophies of Hebrews, Greeks, Romans and early Christians.

think twice wrote on October 26, 2009 10:05 AM: "...Both the Bush and Obama administrations have refused to release them, arguing their release might inflame our enemies. (How they could be any more inflamed is hard to imagine.)..."

Underestimating one's enemies may be among the most dangerous of strategic errors in this or any war. We're arguably on a losing streak as it is in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Insistent demand for access to these photos now seems nearly arrogant conceit on the part of the press.

Obama came into office saying he'd get access granted to the photos for the Press. His 180 turn on that intention strongly indicates the photos' content would undermine our troops' safety, and from there, increased domestic threat is not a stretch, particularly in light of recent arrests of terrorist suspects in Colorado and New York.

Assigning Obama's motive to his "lack of transparency" in light of these circumstances, is at best, imaginative. Finding it “hard to imagine” our enemies any more inflamed than they already are suggests less a lack of imagination, than a short term memory of our enemies’ devastation of America in 2001.

Scott wrote on October 26, 2009 08:29 AM: The most important "freedom" to Mr. Mitchell is the FREE information that he can obtain from the government and then put it in his newspaper and SELL it.

Now I need a license just to ill? wrote on October 25, 2009 10:00 PM: I'd rather fight for my right to party.

Your not thinking wrote on October 25, 2009 09:34 PM: Mr. Thomas Mitchell,

Your not "thinking out of the box" Mr. Mitchell.

The pictures probably show Saddam Hussein being tortured. Or they have Osama Bin Laden in custody (which I have always believed). A home-grown American Iraqi being tortured?

It has always been my belief that it is something other than what we think.

patrick wrote on October 25, 2009 09:10 PM: winston:

There is no contradiction; the author says that we cannot be "passive". You assume that not being passive means taking up arms; there is room in between those two extremes with which to protect our liberties.

And the way you continue to speak for our "founding fathers" is inspiring winston; its as if you knew them personally. The facts are that the guys who wrote our Constitution and Declaration of Independence were as flawed as you and me, and said and did many things that were contradictions to what resulted.

Fixating on the words that were spoken, is foolish consistency my friend.

winston smith wrote on October 25, 2009 07:47 PM: "It requires tolerance, the willingness to lose and not take up arms and fight over it. And that's something that needs to be constantly reaffirmed in every generation. And Americans should understand that they can't be passive about their liberties, that if they are passive about their liberties, they will ultimately lose them."

There seems to be a contradiction in these statements. Stone correctly notes that you can't passively protect liberty, but he also states that we cannot take up arms when we lose. I believe the Founding Fathers had a different view on this.

The American People's escape clause from tyranny, as delineated in the Declaration: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Morgan Silver wrote on October 25, 2009 04:48 PM: That last quote from Stone says it brilliantly: "..It requires tolerance, the willingness to lose and not take up arms and fight over it. .."

This is important to remember because the ability of Americans to withstand and overcome political setbacks (of either party) is one of the distinguishing elements of our nation.

The reverse is obvious -- if every time a political faction grabbed their guns and started shooting when things didn't go their way, we'd be just another failed government waiting for the next warlord to come along.

Which means --gasp!-- that Lincoln was wrong.

Frank L wrote on October 25, 2009 02:55 PM: Thomas Mitchell;

Your editorial staff is already on record as supporting torture for non-uniformed aggressors against the U.S., so why do care what the pictures demonstrate?

Seriously, why do you care? How will the release of these photos matter to you? To prove torture occurred, which is what your subordinates condone or that it didn't happen and you are disappointed?

Or do you just have a particularly sick personality that wishes to see other humans tortured?

FOIA should be supported; but I know that that is not a universal concern of yours...I have personal knowledge that your curiosity is limited and I believe it is limited to exploring actions of those that are not "friends" of yours.

Read All Comments