The Pentagon Likens Native Americans to al Qaeda: More than Just an Incredibly Offensive Analogy

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Anon says:

    Not bad for a nation that was, essentially, built on the mistreatment and genocide of the Native American people. America = the original Al Qaeda? No one wants to hear that though, do they?

  2. Orin Kerr says:

    Is the brief available somewhere?

  3. jan karol says:

    Genocide is what we do. The evil empire is US.

  4. We posted the materials on our blog Turtle Talk as this was happening. The offending brief is here:


  5. Edward McCoy says:

    The influence of Europe in Native Indian peoples and,cultures,and traditions,is not talked about anywhere.This was the worst genocide in World History. 59+ million dead! No one talks about it and if they do in brief,i hear forget about the past and get on with it.O.K. hear me out,the establishment could not afford this to become a public forum.When natives brought the issue up it was silenced.Prohibition ,indoctrination,religion,CHURCH,and the last straw,INDIAN SCHOOLS.The British Proclamation of 1763 was a clear act of concience on the part of the crown.polititions of today pollute that very Treaty and this needs to go back to Queen and Country to determine the position of the Crown when this document was published.

  6. avoiding google says:

    The government needs to cite precedent to support its position, it should not matter from what era or who the parties to the case were. So General Jackson was a bad guy, so were plenty of the defendants in other landmark criminal cases. What’s different here, apparently, is that the government forgot to maintain complete political correctness and lockstep with liberal orthodoxy. While that may be offensive to you, you babies, it does not concern the law.

    It’s irrelevant, again, that no other court passed on the constitutionality of the tribunals in question. As any lawyer should know, this could be for a variety reasons, including the likely possibility that nobody even thought to question the legality of them at the time.

    Anyone who has studied international law, for example, understands that the customs and practices of nations, in peace and wartime, played a critical role in the development of customary international law. Are you liberals now disavowing your precious international law too? Does the fact that British did horrible acts as colonial occupiers mean that we should disavow all the good, “civilized” precedents they, or others, established?

    What’s interesting too, according to your own facts, is that it wasn’t the tribunal that ordered the execution either, but the general acting outside the law. Doesn’t that suggest the tribunals are not so terrible, but only that belligerent and reckless generals are? I’m really struggling to find an actual objection to the government’s citation here.

    This is, however, an amusing case of liberal hysteria. Thanks for that, I guess.

  7. two creeks says:

    Only a strict Judeo-Christian (or Euro-American) colonialist could conceivably defend Jackson’s actions (as well as the idiotic use of it as a precedent). Just as the settlers (or squatters) needed to use the [EUROPEAN} principle of treaty and/or purchase to take settle lands so has that [Seminole land theft] event of years ago been adapted to another situation of ambiguous legality, adding more murk to the American discourse around the principle of “justic.” That’s why it’s wrong. Not necessarily because it violates a strict reading of colonial and imperially derived laws that were constructed in overwhelming favor of Euro-American expansion and ethnic cleansing world-wide.